2. The plaintiffs shall bear the litigation costs.

A. Status of the Parties

1) The Simarket business and real estate rental business established on September 8, 1958 by ODR, which are the part of the plaintiff's department of the plaintiff's office, are the non-listed corporation, the main business of which is the plaintiff's business, and currently the plaintiff's office is the representative director following the above ODR and OE. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's ParkB is the wife of the above OE and the plaintiff's office is the plaintiff's OCC is the father of the above OE.

2) Under the following circumstances, the total number of shares issued in △△△ prior to the instant commercial audit was 46,000 shares. The remaining shareholders, excluding HanF and ChoG, are all relatives and affinity relationship.

(b) Paid reduction;

On November 5, 2004, the MaF held 6,000 shares of 10,000 shares per share of 6,417 shares (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") in △△△△, which were held by MaF. The MaF transferred the remaining 417 shares to HaF, an existing shareholder of this case, at that time. The MaF transferred the remaining 417 shares to HaF.

(c) Examination on changes in stocks;

1) During the period from April 22, 2009 to May 12, 2009, the director of the Regional Regional Tax Office of △△△△ revealed the fact that the △△ branch made the instant reduction of the capital for consideration.

2) On April 22, 2009, the director of the Regional Tax Office requested the △△△ branch to submit evidentiary materials on the grounds for the instant reduction of capital and the determination of the consideration amount. On April 28, 2009, △△△ branch of the Regional Tax Office sent a statement to the effect that the request for the purchase of the instant shares was received from the FF from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on April 28, 2009, and that it was necessary to adjust minority shareholders in △ branch, and that the instant reduction of capital was decided to reduce the paid amount. The amount of the paid reduction was 5,000 won per share in 203, the net profit per share was 16,460 won per share, and the market interest rate was 10%.

3) As a result, the director of the ▽▽△△ Commissioner of the Regional Tax Office cannot calculate the market price of the instant shares, he confirmed that the Plaintiffs obtained a profit from capital reduction that is subject to gift tax under Article 42(1)3 of the Act, Article 31-9(2)5(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and Articles 54, 55, and 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18177, Dec. 30, 2003) as stated in the following table as the result of calculating the appraised value of the instant shares under supplementary assessment method.

4) Accordingly, the director of the Regional Tax Office informed the Plaintiffs of the fact that he/she reported and paid gift tax after the deadline, but notified the Plaintiffs of such fact to the Defendants, who did not implement the notification.

(d) Disposition of dismissal of the instant case;

After receiving the above notification from the director of the △○ Tax Office on July 1, 2009, the director of the tax office imposed and notified each of the gift tax amounting to KRW 158,782,490 on Plaintiff OA, and the gift tax amounting to KRW 136,773,690 on Plaintiff OB. Defendant △△△ Tax Office imposed and notified the gift tax amounting to KRW 91,980,393 on Plaintiff OCC on the same day (hereinafter referred to as each of the above dispositions against Plaintiff).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 1, 3, and 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(i)the unconstitutionality and illegality of Article 31-9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act;

A) A deviation from the scope of delegation;

Article 42 (1) of the Act provides that "if a person has obtained any profit above the standard prescribed by Presidential Decree, such profit shall be deemed the value of property donated to the person who has acquired such profit," and the provision of the Act stipulates only that "the value of donated property exceeds the standard prescribed by Presidential Decree," and only "the standard" was delegated to the Presidential Decree, and Article 31-9 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates "the profit above the standard" and deviates from the scope of delegation.

B) The allocation of tax equality;

Article 31-9 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is invalid because it violates the principle of tax equality guaranteed by the Constitution in the following respect:

(1) According to Article 26(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, when calculating the value of donated property acquired by capital reduction, the lesser of the value equivalent to 30/100 of the market price or 300 million won shall be deducted from the difference between the price and the market price. However, even though there is no substantial difference between the imposition of the gift tax on the profits from low-price and high-priced transfer and the difference in the appraisal of stocks due to capital reduction and the imposition of the gift tax on the difference in the assessment of stocks due to capital reduction, Article 31-9(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act prescribing the calculation method of the value of donated property acquired by capital

② If the difference in the evaluation before and after reduction of capital exceeds KRW 300 million, the gift tax is not imposed at all if the amount of gift tax is less than KRW 300,000,000, considering the entire amount of the evaluation difference as the value of donated property. If the amount of gift tax is deducted from the profits accrued from reduction of capital, it would result in unreasonable consequences that would result in more substantial gains if the difference in the evaluation difference before and after reduction is less than KRW 300,000.

(ii)with respect to taxation requirements:

A) Appropriateness of evaluation of shares in △△ branch

The defendants assessed the net asset value per share of △△ value of KRW 739,536 per share in calculation of the net asset value. This seems to have been attributable to the increase of KRW 158% or above from KRW 19,285,000 to KRW 30,396,00,000, or KRW 158% of the total asset value of the land held by △△△. For the same period, the real estate rent income in △△ for 2,266,00,000, KRW 2,593,000 per share in 2,593,000, or KRW 114% per share in net asset value, the business profit of KRW 619,00,000, KRW 878,000,000 in 204, or KRW 142% in consideration of the increase in net asset value of this case at the time of the reduction of the capital of this case.

B) In light of the following circumstances, there is a justifiable reason under Article 42(3) of the Act, which constitutes a case where no gift tax is imposed.

The shares in the Dolsan and the unlisted shares are non-listed shares and are not interchangeable in a extreme way.

The FF has owned shares for more than 30 years without any conflict with the controlling shareholder, and the ratio of distribution was high so that it did not receive unfair treatment from the majority shareholder.

The FF had an economic judgment ability as a high academic background, so it was aware of the value of dividends and shares received for over 30 years.

The age of 70 years and the age of 70, the FF tried to propose the purchase of the shares of △△ in the first place.

The plaintiffs and plaintiffs had 84% or more of the shares in △△, and there was no need to purchase shares held by HanF.

The reduction of the paid capital of this case was voluntarily reduced.

The shares without redeemability are traded at lower prices than the shares with exchangeability, and the discount rate is determined by the free negotiation of the parties to the transaction.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) As of May 11, 2004, the date of the instant capital reduction, the total size of assets in △△ was approximately KRW 40,097,00,000, and the value of real estate among them was approximately KRW 35,161,00,000 (87.7%).

2) The weight of real estate rental revenue and operating profit from the total sales in △△ around the time the instant capital reduction was carried out is as listed below.

3) The KF received annual dividends from the △△ branch up to the previous year of the instant capital reduction. The KF received annual dividends from the △ branch up to the previous year of the instant capital reduction, 2000, 4,000 per share in 201, and 7,500 per share in 202, and 2003.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of evidence Nos. 5, 11, and 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(i) Whether it deviates from the scope of delegation under Article 31-9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act; or

Article 42 (1) 3 of the Act refers to the difference in the appraisal of shares owned or the properties in question before and after the change in the value of the shares or the profits from the transactions that increase or decrease the corporation's capital as a result of the increase or decrease of the capital of the corporation, and the relevant profits must be taxed above the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, the above provision of the Act provides that only the portion exceeding the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree should be deemed as the value of the property. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the above provision of the Act provides only the portion exceeding the standard

B) Whether it is against the principle of tax equality

(1) When a person gains a profit from the reduction of capital subject to gift tax pursuant to Article 42(1)3 of the Act or from transfer at a low price or transfer subject to gift tax pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Act, the former is different in that the former makes an indirect benefit to a shareholder by paying purchase expenses for capital reduction by a corporation having a separate position, and the latter makes an indirect benefit to the shareholder, and the latter is the object of the legal act that the person who gains profit directly becomes a party to the transaction. Thus, in calculating the value of donated property due to a transfer at a low price or at a high price, Article 26(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the lower amount between the price and the market price should be deducted from the lower amount equivalent to 30/100 of the market price or 300 million won, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs’ assertion in this part is contrary to the principle of tax equality.

(2) In a case where the appraised value of shares is changed due to capital reduction and the profit equivalent to the difference is obtained, it does not constitute a gift under the Civil Act; however, it is nothing more than the actual increase of the value of the shares that are the existing property, and it is subject to taxation, and the decision to impose tax in a case where there is an increase in the value of the shares that is the object of taxation. Specifically, there is room for discretion to the legislative discretion as a matter of the legislative formation right. However, the issue such as the plaintiffs' assertion is no choice but to occur regardless of where the standard is attached to the case. Thus, the appraisal of shares before and after capital reduction under Article 39-9 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is determined to be subject to gift tax only if it is more than 30/100 of the value of shares before capital reduction or more than 300 million won, and as long as the standard is not unreasonable, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is not acceptable.

(ii)with respect to taxation requirements:

A) Distribution of the burden of proof of assertion

Article 42 (1) 3 of the Act provides that "if profits are acquired from transactions that increase or reduce corporate capital, such as reduction of capital, and are above the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such profits shall be deemed the value of property donated to a person who has acquired such profits." Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "if deemed that justifiable grounds exist in light of transaction practices, such profits shall not be applied to persons other than the person having a special relationship." In light of the above provision form, if Article 42 (1) 3 of the Act are applicable, such profits shall be deemed the value of donated property: Provided, That if the exception provided for in paragraph (3) of the same Article is applicable, it shall not be deemed the value of donated property, and the tax authority must prove that the taxpayer falls under subparagraph 3 of Article 42 (1) of the Act to impose gift tax, and the taxpayer is not subject to gift tax.

B) Whether the appraisal of shares in △△ branch is appropriate

The capital reduction of this case was conducted before and after the transfer of the capital reduction of this case, and the capital reduction of this case was merely a single act, so it cannot be calculated that the market price of the shares in △△ at the time of the capital reduction of this case, i.e., free transaction between many and unspecified persons, and it is legitimate for the defendant to adopt a supplementary evaluation method in assessing shares in △△. Furthermore, the defendant's evaluation of shares in △△ in accordance with the supplementary evaluation method stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations, calculated the appraised value of shares before and after the capital reduction of this case, and as a result, the plaintiffs obtained the capital reduction of 30 million won or more.

As to the plaintiffs' assertion, even if there is an increase in the officially assessed value of real estate held by △△ from 2001 to 2004 as a result of the increase in the officially assessed value of real estate in △△, the proportion of real estate in the asset value in △△ is 87.7%, if the officially assessed value of real estate was increased, it is anticipated that the rent would have increased accordingly, and in fact, the rent would have increased continuously. In comparison with the appraised value of real estate in △△ for the above period, compared to the amount of KRW 508,117 per share in the appraised value of stocks in △△△△ at the time of the lawfully assessed capital reduction by the defendants, it is difficult to accept this part of the plaintiffs' assertion.

C) Whether there exists a legitimate cause or not

The issue of whether the capital reduction in this case constitutes a “justifiable cause” under Article 42(3) of the Act ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) details of the transaction in question, the relationship between the parties to the transaction, and the transaction value. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiffs alone constitute a case where the capital reduction in this case constitutes a justifiable cause under the transaction practice, and there is no other evidence to

O When compared to KRW 508,117 per share of the appraised value of the shares in △△ at the time of the reduction of the paid capital of this case lawfully assessed by the Defendants, KRW 100,00 per share, which is the value of the paid capital of this case, is too low.

C. According to the evidence evidence No. 7 of this case, it can be acknowledged that the interest rate of a commercial bank at the time of the commercial bank’s capital reduction was 3.42% per annum. The fact that HanF received 7,500 won per share in the year 2003, which was the previous year of the capital reduction for the consideration of this case is as seen earlier. KoreaF's profit (=100,000 won X6,000) accrued from the estimated interest rate of KRW 60,520,000 (60,000 won X3.42%) (i.e., 45,000,000 won (6,000 won), compared with the dividend amount of KRW 6,00,000 per share, it is difficult to view that the net asset value of this case is 24,480,000 won per share to be 6,000 won for the consideration of this case's capital reduction of 60,3604,7000.

OF and Cho G, all of the shareholders in the △△△ branch, except for the KF and ChoG, had the intention to organize minority shareholders through the capital reduction of this case.

O In light of the fact that, around the time of the reduction of the paid-in capital of this case, the △ branch created considerable profits, and most assets forming the △ branch have high disposal value as real estate, it cannot be readily concluded that the shares in △ branch are not exchanged solely on the ground that most of the shareholders are relatives.

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

(iii) the resolution;

All of the plaintiffs' arguments are without merit, and each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate.

3.In conclusion

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