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

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, the defendant confirms that the disposition of imposition of the inheritance taxx,x,xx,xx (including the additional tax) made against the plaintiff on the plaintiff is null and void. In the first place, the above disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

A. On February 1, 2016, the network00 (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) established a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “instant corporation”) by investing in kind ○○○○-dong 2, 000 square meters of land for 833-64 and buildings on land, etc., which are fixed assets for business purposes (real estate for rent), with which ○○-dong 2,000 square meters of land for 803-64 square meters and buildings on land, etc., and acquired the issued stocks x, xx, and xxx (hereinafter referred to as “instant corporation”), and applied for a carryover taxation on the transfer income tax (including local income tax) xx, xx, x, and x members under Article 32 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 1527, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same) on April 30, 201

B. Since August 8, 2016, the deceased died with Gap, the plaintiff, Eul, and Byung who are the spouse of the deceased. On February 28, 2017, the plaintiff reported the inheritance tax by making the shares issued by the deceased as inherited property, such as Xx,xx,xx0 (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") as the shares issued by the corporation of this case owned by the deceased, and on February 28, 2017, the amount of the above carry-over application for taxation x,xx,xx,xx, andxxx is assessed as x,xx, including the liabilities of the corporation of this case.

C. As a result of the inheritance tax investigation from the x.x. to the x.x.x. from the 201x.x. to the 201x.x.x., the head of the △△ Regional Tax Office increased the transfer income tax on the investment in kind from the xx,xx,xx to the x,xx,xx (hereinafter referred to as "the carried-over and tax amount") from the x,x,xx, andx (hereinafter referred to as "the carried-over and tax amount") to the x. However, it is excluded from the corporate debts of the instant corporation pursuant to Article 54 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27835, Feb. 7, 2017; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act").

D. The head of △△ District Tax Office notified the head of the Regional Tax Office of the result of such investigation, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the investigation, 201x,xx,xx,xx (including additional tax, and the amount of tax notified after deducting the already paid tax amount from the total determined tax amount on the entire inheritor) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for trial with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on x. x. x. x. x. 201x.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, 10, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 16

Each entry of family cards (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) procedural defects (main and conjunctive claims)

The instant disposition shall be unlawful for the following reasons, and its defect shall be so serious and clear as to be null and void or to be revoked as a matter of course.

A) The Defendant’s notice of tax payment served on the Plaintiff includes the name of the other inheritors, the amount of inheritance tax to be paid by each inheritor, and the details of calculation of the amount of inheritance tax are omitted. Moreover, even though the Defendant notified all inheritors of the tax base and the amount of tax, it did not notify the Plaintiff of the tax payment notice, but did not give any notification to the other inheritors.

B) Even though the Defendant should place a tax notice and a revenue collector as a revenue collector of the attached documents in accordance with the National Tax Examination Management Regulations, the Defendant did not do so.

(ii) substantial defects (the cause of preliminary claims);

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus should be revoked.

A) The purpose of Article 32 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to promote corporate restructuring and at the same time to support corporate stability by transferring the income accrued when an individual invests in kind fixed assets for business or is converting into a corporation by a method of business transfer or acquisition. The carried-over and the tax amount of this case are not only the corporate obligation and the amount already determined, but also all the elements of the debt stipulated in the concept system for financial reporting. If the carried-over and the tax amount of this case are more than the case where the property right guaranteed by the Constitution is violated because they are more burden than the case where the carried-over and the tax amount of this case are not included in the corporate debt of the corporation of this case, the carried-over and the tax amount of this case are included in the corporate debt of the corporation of this case. Nevertheless, the defendant assessed the value of the stocks of this case by not including the carried-over and the tax amount of this case in the debt of this case.

B) In addition, there are parts that the Defendant has excessively assessed in assessing the value of the instant shares.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination of procedural defect assertion

1) Whether a tax payment notice defect and notice procedure are unlawful

A) Relevant legal principles

In issuing a tax notice to co-inheritors, not only the name of co-inheritors who are liable to pay the tax but also the amount of tax imposed which is subdivided corresponding to the inherited portion by the taxpayer, but also the calculation basis or calculation statement must be written or attached, and such taxation disposition omitted is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu3387, May 27, 1993).

B) Specific determination

Article 10 (No. 6) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "No. 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 18 shall be integrated into the following circumstances, namely, that all inheritors, including the plaintiff, are served with a tax payment notice (No. 10) on November 17, 2017; and (2) the inheritance tax amount to be paid by inheritors is not specific; however, the tax base of "No. 10, 4, 00 among the heirs who return to the notice" and "No. 20, 10, 100, 14, and 18, 200, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 200, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

2) Whether a tax notice and its accompanying documents should be affixed to each other

According to Article 15(1) of the Regulations on the Management of National Tax Examination Affairs, the taxpayer protection officer of a tax office in receipt of an application for objection requests the head of the division in charge of the tax office to submit a review table on legitimacy of notice of tax payment (attached Form 2), etc. (attached Form 2) to the head of the division in charge of the tax office in receipt of the application for objection within a given period. (Attachment 2) The "examination table on legitimacy of notice of tax payment, etc." (attached Form 2) includes the "examination table on legitimacy of notice of tax payment, etc." (attached Form 2), which includes the "written assessment of inheritance tax base and calculation of tax amount, and the list of inheritance tax and joint and several tax obligors to be paid by each heir, after preparing a notice of tax payment, and attaching the notice to the tax collector. However, the above regulation on the management of national tax examination is merely a direction of the National Tax Service to process the appeal for national tax in a prompt and fair manner, and it is not effective to bind the public or the court.

D. Determination as to the assertion of substantive defect

1) Whether the carried-over and tax amount of the instant case can be included in the liabilities of the instant corporation

According to Article 2 (1) 6 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where an individual transfers fixed assets used for the pertinent business to a corporation by means of investment in kind, etc., capital gains tax under Article 94 of the Income Tax Act is not imposed on the individual who transfers the fixed assets used for the pertinent business, and instead, where the transferring corporation transfers the fixed assets for the business, etc., it refers to paying as corporate tax the amount equivalent to the amount of capital gains tax calculated under Article 104 of the same Act, calculated by deeming that the previous fixed assets for business, etc. are not transferred to the relevant corporation in the taxable period to which the date of transfer to the relevant corporation belongs, and in light of the following circumstances known in the contents, form, and system of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the value of the instant stocks shall not be included in the amount of carried-over and tax of

A) In calculating the net asset value of the relevant corporation in order to calculate the value of stocks not listed on the Stock Exchange at the time of commencing an inheritance, the "corporate tax amount on the income accrued until the date of the evaluation standard, one of the liabilities to be deducted from the asset value of the relevant corporation pursuant to subparagraph 3 of Article 17-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 719, Mar. 20, 2019) refers to the corporate tax that has become final and conclusive that has already been or is to be imposed on the income included in the appraised value of the relevant corporation until the date of commencing an inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu16308, Nov. 27, 1998). However, a corporation that acquired fixed assets for business from a resident is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the calculated amount of capital gains tax originally paid by the resident only before transferring the assets. Therefore, the carried forward and tax

B) Article 32(5) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that where a corporation established by acquiring fixed assets for business from a resident discontinues its business succeeded within five years from the date of its establishment or disposes of 50% or more of the stocks acquired by the said resident through the conversion into a corporation (Article 32(5) of the same Act) (Article 32(5) of the same Act provides that the said resident who is not a corporation shall pay the carried-over tax

2) Whether the Defendant has assessed excessive value of the instant shares

The plaintiff merely claims that the defendant's excessive appraisal of the value of the shares of this case is unlawful (see the petition 16 pages), and there is no argument as to which specific part has been mistakenly assessed. The defendant evaluated the value per share of the shares of this case as xxx, based on net asset value only on net asset value pursuant to Article 54 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see subparagraph 3 of this Article) by deeming that the corporation of this case falls under the "corporation less than 3 years after the commencement of the business" (see the plaintiff's assertion as to this part cannot be accepted, since there is no evidence to find that there was any error in the market price of the shares of this case as of the commencement date of the inheritance

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim and conjunctive claim of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.