2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6-1, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 4, and 1-4.

A. The Plaintiffs are shareholders of the SP (hereinafter referred to as “P”) established around July 15, 2004 and engaged in the insurance agency business.

B. From January 18, 2006 to March 7, 2006, Plaintiff KimB acquired 760,000 shares (3.92% of the total shares of OB) issued at OB Co., Ltd. (the former trade name was changed to △△ Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “OB”) and became the largest shareholder by acquiring 703,000 shares issued at OB (3.62% of the total shares of OB) through the LB code operated by Plaintiff KimB, and then became the largest shareholder through the temporary shareholders meeting on March 7, 2006. Meanwhile, Plaintiff KimB held office as the representative director at OB, from March 1, 206 to July 31, 2006.

C. On March 13, 2006, the OB decided to acquire the entire shares issued by the PP as KRW 750,000 per share of KRW 15 billion. The shareholders of the PP, including the plaintiffs, have transferred the shares to the PP on March 13, 2006, KRW 750,000 per share of KRW 150 per share of the face value (5,000 per share) on the part of the PP owned by the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "stocks of this case").

D. From January 29, 2010 to March 15, 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the suspicion that the plaintiffs transferred the shares of this case at a high price before OB, the plaintiffs received profits from OB by the high price transfer of the shares of this case, and calculated the market price of the shares of this case at KRW 16,877 per share by the supplementary assessment method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), and disposed of the amount calculated at KRW 750,00 per share of the shares of this case at KRW 750,00 per share and KRW 16,877 per share of the market price of the shares of this case at KRW 16,877 per share of the shares of this case as bonus to the plaintiffs.

E. Accordingly, the plaintiffs calculated the total income tax for the year 2006 by adding the amount of bonus income to the amount of earned income. On July 28, 2010, the plaintiff KimB submitted an additional global income tax return to the head of the relevant tax office on the same day, and the plaintiff KimB filed a separate global income tax return to the head of the relevant tax office on the same day, but the transfer of the shares was only based on the market price and is not a high-priced transfer. On July 30, 2010, the plaintiff KimA demanded the head of the relevant tax office to correct the amount of global income tax for the year 2006,366,254,956, and the plaintiff KimB demanded the head of the relevant tax office to correct the amount of global income tax for the year 2006, and the plaintiff KimB requested the correction of the amount of tax for the year 206, 219,316,433 won to the head of the relevant tax office on the same day. The defendant Kim head of the defendant Kim-free made the above rejection disposition against the plaintiff 30.

F. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 15, 2010, respectively, but the claims were dismissed on December 28, 2010.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) In light of the fact that a certified public accountant need to acquire the instant shares for the purpose of developing a new business territory and maintaining the requirements for listing on KOSDAQ, etc., the certified public accountant has assessed the instant shares as KRW 821,715 per share, etc., KRW 750,000 per share, the price at which the Plaintiffs transferred the instant shares, constitutes the market price under Article 52(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, and even if not, in the case of Seoul High Court 2009No1531, which is a related criminal case, deemed the adequate appraised value of the instant shares as KRW 614,928 per share, in light of the fact that at least 614,928 won per share, which falls under the market price,

2) The shares of Plaintiff KimA transferred to OB are not 9,700 shares but 9,00 shares. Defendant XX head of the tax office calculated the bonus amount by deeming that Plaintiff KimA transferred 9,700 shares to OB on the premise that the actual owner of 700 shares was the Plaintiff KimA, under the name of Ansan, on the premise that the actual owner of 700 shares was the Plaintiff KimA. Accordingly, the instant disposition against Plaintiff KimA was unlawful in this respect.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or found in Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 7, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1, 2-3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-3, and Eul evidence 6-1, 6-4. The whole purport of the arguments is examined.

1) The process of changes in shares is as follows according to the statement of changes in shares under XX.

2) On January 9, 2006, Plaintiff KimA acquired shares from KimD, EE. The transfer value at the time of reporting securities transaction tax was reported as KRW 5,000 per share.

3) Around January 2006, when the Plaintiff KimA purchased the OB stocks, he had already planned to take over the PP through the OB that he had been a major shareholder and the representative director. On March 9, 2006, 2006, after securing management rights for the OB, the Plaintiff KimA requested the MaF to assess the value of the shares for the purchase of shares in XX.

4) From March 9, 2006 to March 12, 2006, the FF evaluated the value of shares under XX based on the accounting data and its business plan received from KimD. At the time of assessing the value of shares under XX, the FF did not seek opinions from companies of the same kind of industry or those engaged in the same industry as that of the same industry other than the P, or obtain data from them, or talk with their employees about their business, financial status, business plan, etc. In early 2006, when assessing the value of shares under XX, the FF did not specifically ask their employees about the business, financial status, and business plan. On March 12, 2006, when assessing the value of shares under XX, the FF made an inquiry about whether it is appropriate to determine the value of shares acquired under XX (the FF did not take into account the average value of shares issued under the provisions of 750,000 won and the average value of shares sold under the provisions of 750,000 won per share).

5) The Plaintiff KimA set the purchase price of KRW 750,00 per share, which had already been determined on the basis of the above calculation basis, and during that process, the need for the OB to take over the shares of XX or the appropriateness of the above appraised value was not examined from the perspective of the OB, and there was no discussion between the board of directors or the executives on the purchase agenda.

6) The shares of OBE acquired at 15 billion won are treated as losses in the amount of approximately KRW 9.1 billion in the amount of 8 months and 0.1 billion in the amount of shares were assessed as 0 won in the amount of 1 year and disposed of as full loss.

7) The prosecutor judged that the act of the plaintiff KimA's act of having the plaintiff KimA purchase shares at a high price in XX constitutes occupational breach of trust, and prosecuted the plaintiff KimA as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust), and on June 4, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court (2008Dahap1413, etc.) sentenced the plaintiff KimA to the judgment that on January 4, 2009, the price of shares is KRW 75.00 per share (the amount assessed by the plaintiff KimA's transfer of KRW 8,000 per share to the plaintiff KimB on January 11, 2006, but this transaction is not discovered in the specifications of changes in stocks, etc.) that the plaintiff KimA suffered property damage equivalent to at least KRW 13.5 billion per share before the OB.

8) On December 11, 2009, the Seoul High Court (2009No1531), the appellate court, based on the prosecutor’s application for changes of indictment on November 18, 2009, sentenced that the price of shares does not exceed KRW 614,928,00,000, which was calculated in accordance with the method of appraisal of securities, and sentenced that the Plaintiff KimA suffered property damage equivalent to at least KRW 2.7 billion against the OB, and that judgment was dismissed on May 27, 2010 (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do369).

9) In the event that the instant shares are assessed in accordance with the supplementary assessment method under Article 63(1)1(c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, they are corporations less than three years after the commencement of business as of the assessment base date, and fall under the corporations whose net asset value is not permitted, taking into account the net profit and loss value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, the price per share calculated based on February 28, 2006 nearest the date of actual transfer of the instant shares, is 14,676 won, and the price per share is 16,877 won if it is proved pursuant to Article 63(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (in the investigation report prepared by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, the price per share of the relevant shares is 25,03 won, but this is the amount appraised as of January 13, 2006 as of January 13, 2005).

10) According to the contract, etc. submitted by Plaintiff KimA in the course of tax investigation, it is deemed that ACC transferred shares of KRW 700 to the OB on March 13, 2006, KRW 5250 million per share ( KRW 750,000 per share) and received the price as bonds with warrants for the issuance of preemptive rights and for early redemption from March 15, 2007. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19068, Apr. 26, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 18787, Apr. 26, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 17875, Apr. 26, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 17878, Apr. 28, 200, etc.

11) However, on December 4, 2008, under the belief that the plaintiff Kim Jong-A will recognize and increase the investment of funds in the company run by the plaintiff Kim Jong-A on December 4, 2008 without ascertaining the detailed operational plan, the plaintiff Kim Jong-A will be given KRW 250 million to the plaintiff Kim Jong-A on December 21, 2005. A request was made to return the investment amount on March 24, 2006. Around April 24, 2006, on deposit received KRW 280,000,000,000, including the principal amount of KRW 250,000,000 and interest KRW 30,000,000,000,000, which was investigated by the prosecutor as a witness, and it did not take part in the process of acquiring and sealing shares, and no statement was prepared and sealed by the tax official about the first 00,000 shares.

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Whether the transfer price of the instant shares can be recognized as the market price

Under the provisions of Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the calculation of the value of donated property by the supplementary method of assessment as stipulated in Articles 61 through 65 of the same Act is limited to the case where it is difficult to calculate the market value as of the date of donation of donated property, and it is difficult to calculate the market value. Under Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the tax authority bears the burden of proof for the defendants, who are the defendants to bear the burden of proving that the market value is difficult to calculate. The market value refers to a specific amount, i.e., an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction, and even if there is a transaction example, it cannot be deemed that the transaction value is formed by a normal transaction that properly reflects the objective exchange value of donated property, and if the gift is an emergency stock (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2271, May 13, 2004).

As to the instant case, since the instant shares were non-listed shares, free trade between many and unspecified persons cannot be deemed to take place, barring special circumstances. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and the purport of the entire argument, namely, Plaintiff KimA, who controlled the above recognition fact and the OOB, intended to acquire the right of management of the Plaintiff KimA and acquire shares at a high-priced level that he thought, and did not provide accurate and objective accounting data to a reliable accounting corporation, thereby evaluating the appropriate value of the PP objection, or making efforts to determine a legitimate purchase price through substantial price negotiations with its shareholders. In light of the above, it appears that the instant shares transaction was conducted in a situation where it is difficult to expect to trade by reflecting objective exchange values in an equal relationship pursuing economic benefits with their shareholders, and it appears that Plaintiff KimA formally requested the appraisal of shares at KRW 750,000 per share, and it appears difficult to recognize that Plaintiff KimA traded shares at KRW 50,000,000 per share, which appears to be the market price of the instant shares at KRW 106.

B) In a criminal trial, Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act explicitly excludes the appraisal value of non-listed stocks from the value recognized as the market price pursuant to the latter part of Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, on whether the value recognized as the basis of calculating the amount of breach of trust in the criminal trial is deemed the market price. The purport is to integrate the appraisal value of non-listed stocks with the supplementary assessment method stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in order to prevent the occurrence of a result contrary to the principle of fair taxation by calculating various appraisal values according to the different appraisal methods for non-listed stocks. In light of the fact that the non-listed stocks are not traded among many and unspecified persons, and thus, it is difficult to derive the market price under the former part of Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, barring any special circumstance, the appraisal value of non-listed stocks cannot be deemed the market price under Article 60(2)

On the other hand, the Seoul High Court rendered a decision that the value of the shares was less than 614,928 won in a criminal trial against the Plaintiff KimA, on the other hand, that the Plaintiff KimA incurred property damage equivalent to at least 2.7 billion won in the OB. However, on the other hand, the court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of occupational breach of trust in the criminal trial against the Plaintiff KimA, i.e., the number of non-listed shares traded in accordance with the method or standard, even if the value of the shares is calculated based on the above method or standard, it is necessary to examine the method of determining the value of the shares specifically in accordance with the purport of the precedent, based on a comparison and examination of the price calculated according to the actual transaction case of the Plaintiff KimB, the price calculated according to the method of appraisal under the Securities and Exchange Act, and the price calculated according to the method of appraisal under the Securities and Exchange Act, which is the maximum value of the shares in the criminal trial for the purpose of calculating the value of the shares in question, with the estimated average value of the shares calculated based on the average value of the 200.

C) Interim theory

In conclusion, since both the price alleged by the plaintiffs as the market price and the price adopted to calculate the amount of breach of trust in a criminal trial do not correspond to the market price, the shares of this case constitute cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price, and the market price of this case is 16,877 won per share assessed by the supplementary evaluation method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, this part of

2) Determination on the second argument

In light of the consistent statement made by ACC as seen earlier, and the fact that ACC received the share transfer price of KRW 525 million from ACC as a bond with warrant, the transfer price of KRW 280,000,000,000, which is a half of its face value, is difficult to obtain in light of the empirical rule. In light of the fact that the other party who transferred the bond with warrant is the spouse of the Plaintiff KimA, the actual owner of the shares in ACC’s name is the Plaintiff KimA. Therefore, there is no reason to believe this part of Plaintiff KimA’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.