2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs are the successors of the least DD (hereinafter referred to as "the decedent") who died on December 18, 2005, and the plaintiff South South A is the wife of the decedent, and the plaintiff ChoiB and the highestCC are the children of the decedent.

나. 원고들은 피상속인으로부터 상속받은 주식회사 ☆☆(이하 '☆☆'이라고 한다)의 주식(이하 '이 사건 주식'이라고 한다) 17,500주에 대하여 상속세 및 증여세법(2006. 12. 30. 법률 제8139호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제63조 제1항 제1호 다목에 정한 보충적 평가방법에 따라 1주당 10,281원으로 평가하고, 피상속인이 배정받은 주식회사 ☐☐☐(이하 '☐☐이'라고 한다, 현재 그 상호가 주식회사 △△△선으로 변경되었다)의 신주인수권(이하 '이 사건 신주인수권'이라고 한다) 982,142주에 대하여 원고들이 최종적으로 인수한 402,142주 만을 상속재산에 포함하여 상속세를 신고 ・ 납부하였다.

C. Based on the results of the tax investigation with respect to the plaintiffs by the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office, the defendant assessed 50,000 won, which is the price of the transaction between EE and ○○○○ Fund, at the market price on May 26, 2006, as to the shares of this case, and assessed 982,142 shares, which are the price per share, at the market price on May 26, 2006, and as to the preemptive right of this case, on November 1, 2007, with respect to the plaintiff Nam Nam-A, including all 9,031,260 won, inheritance tax, and inheritance tax of 220,960,970 won, and inheritance tax of 76,08,930 won, which were the price of the transaction between E and ○○○○ Fund, at the market price on the shares of this case (hereinafter "disposition

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 29, 2008, but was dismissed on October 1, 2008.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1, Eul evidence 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiffs' principal

The disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons:

1) The share inheritance portion

Since 17,500 shares up to 58.3% of the total trading volume of the shares of this case are traded in 34,286 won per share, it is reasonable to view the market value of the shares of this case as above. Even if it is not so, it is reasonable to regard the shares of this case as 34,833 won per share, which is the average trading price of the total transaction example, even though it is reasonable to regard the shares of this case as 28.4% per share, which is just 50,000 won per share.

2) Part on inheritance of this case’s preemptive right

Even if the decedent received the allotment of the preemptive right of this case 982,142 shares, the plaintiffs renounced 580,000 shares during the commencement of inheritance and subsequently the economic benefits therefrom were extinguished retroactively. However, the defendant determined the inheritance tax standard including the inherited property.

(b) related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The details of transactions of the shares of this case after the commencement of the plaintiffs' inheritance are as follows.

2) ☆☆의 대표이사 및 대주주인 유EE는 2004.경 중국 해외사업진출과 관련하여 정FF에게 이 사건 주식 4,000주를 1주당 5,000원에 양도하였다가 2006.경 중국사업 실패 및 경영권 방어를 위하여 위 주식을 반환하여 줄 것을 요구하여, 2006. 5. 15. 정FF로부터 이 사건 주식 4,000주를 당초 양도하였던 금액인 1주당 5,000원에 양수하였고, 창업투자회사인 ◇◇◇◇펀드로부터 제념에 대한 투자를 받는 일환으로 2006. 5. 26. ◇◇◇◇펀드에게 이 사건 주식 3,500주를 l주당 50,000원에 양도하였으며 , 2006. 5. 30. 엠 아이 (원고 남정 선은 2006. 3. 17.부터 2006. 7. 13.까지 ☐☐이의 대표이사였으며, 원고들은 2005. 12. 31. 기준으로 ☐☐이의 총 발행주식의 46.62%를 보유하고 있는 최대주주였다)로부터 이 사건 주식 17,500주를 1주당 34,286원에 양수하였고, 2006. 6. 12. 및 2006. 8. 28. 이GG 및 정HH에게 이 사건 주식 5,000주 및 1,000주를 1주당 50,000원에 양도하였다.

3) On the other hand, on June 4, 2007, the EE made an answer to the question of how to determine the sales price at the time of the conclusion of the stock sales contract with ○○ Fund, EG, and EH on May 26, 2006, June 12, 2006, and August 28, 2006, among the questions sent by the public officials in charge of the ○○ Regional Tax Office, the EE stated that “the sales price at the time of the conclusion of the stock sales contract with ○○ Fund, EG, and EH was determined as the price objectively reflecting the stock value of this case, and it was traded on the basis of this, from December 2, 2005 to May 26, 2006.”

4) ☐☐이는 2005. 11. 24. 이사회에서 총 신주수를 2,500,000주, 신주배정 기준일을 2005. 12. 12. 17:00경, 청약예정일을 2006. 1. 9.부터 같은 달 10.까지로, 신주의 발 행방법을 주주배정후 실권주 일반공모방식(최종실권주는 주관사에서 총액 인수함)으로, 피상속인에 대한 배정신주수를 982,142주로 하는 내용의 신주발행의 결의를 하였는데, 원고들은 상속개시일(2005. 12. 18,) 이후인 2005. 12. 29. 굿모닝 신한증권에게 피상속인에게 배정된 이 사건 신주인수권 982,142주 중 580,000주에 대하여 신주인수권 발행을 청구하면서 이를 김II 외 7인에게 계좌이체하여 줄 것을 요청하였다.

5) At the time, the Plaintiffs attempted to waive the acquisition of the shares of the above 580,000 shares, but if so, the Plaintiffs were to be responsible for the acquisition of the shares of the Korea-China Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea-China Securities Co., Ltd.”) which is the manager of capital increase with consideration, thereby making the transfer free of charge to 7 others, following the intermediation of the Korea-China Securities Co., Ltd. to prevent forfeited shares.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 2 through 5, Eul evidence 6-1 through 5, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-1 through 5, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The share inheritance portion

A) According to Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value of the property on which an inheritance tax is levied is based on the market price as of the date the inheritance commences, and that “the market price” refers to the objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction in principle, and in order for the transaction price to be deemed the market price at the time of inheritance to be the market price at the time of inheritance, there should be circumstances that the transaction price objectively reflects the general and normal exchange value, and there should be no changes in the price between the inheritance and the above transaction date (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Du2505, Feb. 11, 200; 2005Du5574, Aug. 23, 2007).

나) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 피고는 유EE가 2006. 5. 26. 및 2006. 6. 12. ◇◇◇◇펀드 및 이GG과 사이에 체결된 이 사건 주식 매매계약의 거래가격(1주 당 50,000원)을 이 사건 주식의 시가로 보고 이 사건 처분을 하기에 이른 것인데, 비록 위 각 주식거래가 상속개시일로부터 5개월이 지나 이루어지기는 하였어도 그 기간 동안 ☆☆의 경영상태 등에 변동이 있었다고 인정되지 아니하고, 위 각 주식거래 당사자 간의 관계나 거래의 경위 등에 비추어 위 각 주식거래는 의도적인 조작거래가 아닌 것으로 보여 그에 따른 거래가격 역시 주식의 객관적 교환가치를 적정하게 반영된 정상적인 거래가격이라고 보이고(그 후 유EE는 2006. 8. 28.경 정HH과의 사이에서도 이 사건 주식의 1주당 가격을 50,000원으로 하여 주식을 매매하였다), 이것이 불특정다수인간의 여러 차례에 걸친 거래로 인하여 형성된 가격이 아니라거나 또는 유EE와 ☐☐이 사이에 2006. 5. 30. 이루어진 주식매매계약(오히려 원고 남AA이 ☐☐이의 대표이사로서 원고들이 ☐☐이의 최대주주라는 점에 비추어 위 주식매매계약이 정상적인 거래이었는지 또는 그 거래가격이 객관적 교환가치를 적정하게 반영한 가격이었는지 여부에 대하여 의구심이 든다)에 비해 소규모의 거래였다는 사정만으로 그 거래가격이 객관적 교환가치를 적정하게 반영한 것이 아니라고 볼 수 없다.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2) The part on inheritance of the preemptive right of this case

Since inherited property includes all articles belonging to the decedent and having economic value and all de facto or de facto rights having property value (Article 7(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), the value of the property on which inheritance tax is levied is based on the current market price as of the first day of the commencement (Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act). According to the above facts, on December 12, 2005, the preemptive right of this case was allocated to the decedent on December 12, 2005, and the plaintiffs inherited all of them as of December 18, 2005, and it is reasonable to calculate the tax base including all of the preemptive right of this case inherited to the decedent as of December 18, 2005, the plaintiffs calculated the tax base including the scope of inherited property. Since the plaintiffs transferred the right of this case to Kim II and 7 free of charge, it is merely a disposal of inherited property by a separate juristic act, it cannot be viewed as excluding the scope of inherited property.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.