2. The plaintiff 1-B appeal is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff KimA and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff KimA, and the costs of the appeal between the plaintiff 1B and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff 1B.

A. On December 31, 2003, Plaintiff 1B changed the ownership of 150,000 shares of △△△△ Group Co., Ltd. on December 31, 2003, and 382,00 shares of △△△ Group Co., Ltd. on December 31, 2004, and 100,00 shares of △△△△ Group Co., Ltd.

B. As a result of the investigation into the source of funds to acquire shares from Plaintiff 1B, the head of △△△ Tax Office rendered that each of the above shares was held in title trust with Plaintiff 1B, and sent relevant data to the Defendant. The Defendant applied Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7335, Jan. 14, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on December 31, 2003 to the Plaintiff 1B, who is the donee, the donee, pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7335, Jan. 14, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), on December 31, 2003, imposed gift tax of KRW 187,879,410, and notified the Plaintiff 295,874,760 as gift tax on donation on December 31, 2004.

C. On May 8, 2008, 2008, the director of ○○ Director of the Regional Tax Office sent to each of the above dispositions by registered mail a written decision (excluding the stocks of △△△ Co., Ltd. as subject to gift tax), which is the purport of admitting part of the plaintiffs' objection against each of the above dispositions, to each address [the plaintiff RedB: ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 201

D. On May 13, 2008, Plaintiff 1B received the written decision on May 13, 2008. In order to deliver the written decision to Plaintiff KimA on May 13, 2008, women who visited the instant service site were introduced as Plaintiff KimA wife. The Houseman issued the written decision to the said women and received a digital signature called “CC.” Plaintiff KimA and thisCC stayed abroad on May 8, 2008 - June 21, 2008. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720, May 21, 2008>

E. On June 21, 2008, Plaintiff KimA entered the Republic of Korea on June 26, 2008, and returned to the Republic of Korea on June 26, 2008, and on September 11, 2008, Plaintiff Kim Jong-A filed a cyber appeal through the Internet home of the Tax Tribunal. The phrase "the place of service of this case" or "the date (or the date on which he first becomes aware of the disposition) of the notice of disposition" is written in the column of "the place of service of this case" or "the date on which he received the notice of disposition (or the date on which he first became aware of the disposition). Plaintiff Kim-A submitted a written reason for objection containing detailed arguments thereafter, Plaintiff Kim-A entered Plaintiff YB as a joint requester.

F. On May 18, 2009, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss an appeal filed by Plaintiff KimA on May 18, 2009, and Plaintiff KimA received a written decision on July 29, 2009. The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit with the ○ Administrative Court on October 26, 2009.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap's statements, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 18, Eul's evidence 1 through 6, 9, 10 or 10 evidence (including each branch number), the whole purport of oral argument]

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The defense prior to the Defendant’s merits

B B, prior to filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination or adjudication as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the request for examination as prescribed by the Board of Audit and Inspection Act. Plaintiff KimA received a written decision on the disposition of designating a joint and several tax obligor, and filed a request for adjudication on September 11, 2008, which was with the lapse of 90 days from May 13, 2008, from May 13, 2008. The instant lawsuit is unlawful by the Plaintiffs without undergoing lawful pre-trial procedures.

B. Determination

1) As to Plaintiff KimA

A) Article 8(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that documents under this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served to the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the title holder. While the receipt of documents is in principle done by the title holder, it may be entrusted to another person with the right to receive documents and may be implied delegation. In the case of Article 10, documents under Article 8 shall be served by means of delivery, postal service, or electronic delivery (Paragraph 1), and a notice shall be served by registered mail (Paragraph 2). In the case of postal service, documents may be served to an employee, other employees, or a person living together with a mental capacity to distinguish documents at a place to be served (Paragraph 3). According to the provisions of Article 12, documents to be served under Article 8 shall not be served to the person to receive documents within the scope of his/her right to receive documents, but to the person to receive them directly from his/her family members, etc.

B) On May 13, 2008, the delivery of a written decision sent by a Houseman to Plaintiff KimA by registered mail at the place of service of this case constitutes lawful service under the Framework Act on National Taxes to the women who are in charge of thisCC. The reasons are as follows.

① According to the evidence Nos. 16-1 and 2-2 of this case, the delivery place of this case is the place where Plaintiff KimA was living in Korea. Even if not the address, in light of the fact that Plaintiff KimA was living in Korea, at least every place of delivery of this case at least 24 times (CC) and 16 times (hereinafter “Plaintiff KimA”) were repeated and repeated departure from May 1, 2008. However, in light of the fact that Plaintiff KimA’s written objection or written request submitted before and after the delivery of this case, all of the delivery place of this case were entered into the delivery place of this case, and there is no other evidence to view that there was no other basis for living in Korea. Thus, the delivery place of this case is the place where Plaintiff KimA was living in Korea. Even if it was not the address, in view of the fact that Plaintiff KimA had resided in the delivery place of this case at least once in Korea.

② The Plaintiff KimA asserts as follows. The women who received postal items are only those who sent most of the year abroad by Plaintiff KimA and thisCC once more than once in 1-2 months to clean the place of delivery of this case. The Plaintiff KimA and thisCC did not delegate the right to receive postal items. In fact, there was no other registration items other than the written decision of this case.

However, in light of the fact that: (a) the person receiving a postal item expresses that he/she is the Plaintiff KimA’s person in whose name the postal item was served to him/her; (b) it is difficult to understand that he/she regularly takes charge of cleaning a house to a person who has no special relationship with him/her while staying in a foreign country for a long time (the Plaintiff does not mention how and how he/she became aware of the recipient of the postal item, whether to deliver keyss, and how to pay remuneration); (c) the postal item was immediately delivered to the first delivery attempt; and (d) June 13, 2008, the date on which he/she received the notice of disposition (or date on which he/she first became aware of the receipt of the disposition) on the written request for a trial. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff still stays in a foreign country on the above date and it appears that the recipient of the postal item received the notice of dismissal from the person receiving the postal item, it is deemed that the Plaintiff and thisCC received the registered postal item, etc. delivered during his/her stay abroad.

Even if not, the person who received mail is an employee of the plaintiff KimA at the time of the service of this case, and thus constitutes an employee and other employees under Article 8(3) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

C) As long as the service of this case is lawful, even if the Plaintiff KimA was unaware of the fact of service, or was unable to receive the written decision, it becomes effective immediately at the time of service. The instant petition for adjudication was received on September 11, 2008, which was 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the date, and thus, is unlawful. Even if the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the petition, it cannot be deemed as having gone through a lawful transfer procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2) As to the plaintiff 1-B

The reason why this Court is to use this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the corresponding part (from the third to the 19th th th th th 19th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th) (

3. Conclusion

All of the instant lawsuits are unlawful. The part against Plaintiff KimA in the judgment of the first instance against the judgment is inappropriate. The part against Plaintiff KimA in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the part against Plaintiff KimA in the judgment of the first instance is dismissed, and the part against Plaintiff KimA in the judgment of the first instance is justified. The part against Plaintiff KimB in the judgment of the first instance is dismissed.