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

Cheong-gu Office

1. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition that the Defendant applied for payment in kind with KRW 1,670,340,752, among the disposition that the Defendant applied for payment in kind with stocks 2,965 of a non-party A AA Construction Company, i.e., 930 shares of the same stock among the disposition that the Defendant applied for payment in kind with 930 shares of the inheritance tax on the Plaintiff ( July 15, 2014) and five installments ( July 15, 2015).

A. A. On November 30, 2008, the Plaintiff calculated the inheritance tax base by the weighted average method of 2:3 of the net profit and loss value and net asset value, respectively, in accordance with Article 63(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9269, Dec. 26, 2008) and the proviso of Article 54(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21292, Feb. 4, 2009) after the death of the father of the decedent’s father, the Plaintiff calculated the inheritance tax base by adding the non-listed stocks, etc. issued AA construction corporation to the non-listed stocks, etc. issued by the Defendant for a year from July 15, 201 to July 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff paid the tax amount by installments in cash from one to three installments of annual installments in accordance with annual installments.

B. Since then, on July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff had no means to pay in cash the tax amount of KRW 907,111,952 in four installments, which are expected to be paid in installments, and on June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted an application for permission to pay in kind for inheritance tax to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application for permission to pay in kind”) with an assessment of only the net asset value (1,164 won per share) of the shares paid in kind, among inherited non-listed shares (hereinafter “stocks paid in kind”). < Amended by Act No. 1273, Jun. 13, 2014>

C. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for permission for payment in kind (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for permission for payment in kind without applying the weighted average method applied by the method of calculating the inheritance tax base of the shares originally paid in kind upon applying for permission for payment in kind of inheritance tax (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

D. After July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) intended to pay in kind the tax amount of KRW 1,670,340,752 in installments on four annual installments (as of July 15, 2014) and five installments (as of July 15, 2015) to the Defendant; (b) assessed the shares paid in kind in the instant case as KRW 2,965 per share in the instant case in accordance with the Aggravated average Act; and (c) filed an application for permission for the payment in kind of inheritance tax with an assessment of KRW 563,385 per share in accordance with the weighted average Act; and (d) accordingly, the Defendant granted permission on August 14, 2014 (hereinafter “instant permission disposition”); and accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the payment in kind 2,965 shares in the instant case.

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant refusal disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 29, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 31, 2014, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 18, 2015.

F. Since then, on September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of invalidity of the part exceeding the quantity at the time of assessing the shares paid in kind in the instant case as net asset value method among the instant permission disposition pending in the instant lawsuit (referring to paragraph 2 of the claim).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, each entry of Eul evidence 1 through 6, the purport of all pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 54(4)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that where the share of real estate exceeds 80%, the assessment of unlisted stocks shall be assessed as net asset value method, not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment. Thus, the assessment method of the shares paid in kind in the instant case shall also be assessed as net asset value method, not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment. Therefore, the instant rejection disposition is unlawful on the ground that the Defendant did not evaluate the shares paid in kind to the Plaintiff in the instant case as the weighted average method, and the instant permission disposition also is deemed null and void on the ground that the part that the Defendant made the Plaintiff pay in kind in excess of

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

Before determining the Plaintiff’s assertion, the court first examines the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

1) Article 73(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "Where the value of real estate and securities among property inherited or donated exceeds 1/2 of the value of the relevant property and the amount of inheritance tax or gift tax payable exceeds 20 million won, the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may grant permission for payment in kind only to the relevant real estate and securities upon application by the taxpayer, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Here, where a disposition of refusal to grant payment in kind has already been taken for any reason again, the disposition of permission to pay in kind has already been made for the same property, and there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of refusal to grant payment in kind. This is because even if the disposition of refusal to grant payment in kind has already been revoked, it still remains effective due to the validity of the subsequent disposition of payment in kind, so it does not cause any change in the relevant taxpayer's rights and obligations.

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff filed an application again for payment in kind after the disposition of this case was taken, and the defendant filed an application again for the permission of this case. Thus, the interest in the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is no longer effective (i.e., even if the disposition of this case is revoked, as long as the permission of this case still remains valid, the plaintiff received 1,018 shares as the object of the application of the permission of this case as the object of payment in kind, and thus, it does not result in any change in the plaintiff's rights and obligations).

2) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant refusal disposition only within the instant complaint. In addition, the Plaintiff’s filing of an application for alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of September 16, 2015, along with the filing of an application for alteration of the purport of the claim as of September 16, 2015, sought confirmation of invalidity of the portion exceeding the amount of shares paid in kind (930 shares paid in kind) when assessing the shares of the instant permitted disposition as net asset value method. However, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to matters not specifically provided for in this Act regarding administrative litigation, unless the litigation procedures are substantially delayed. Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the purport of the claim can be altered only to the extent that the basis of the claim is not altered. Thus, the alteration of the claim in an administrative litigation is not the same in itself as the grounds of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Nu21263, etc.).

Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a part of the instant permission disposition is unlawful as it is not allowed to modify the purport of the claim.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.