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

A. On May 23, 2005, KimB, the plaintiff's reference, entered into a stock acquisition agreement with the corporation BBS (hereinafter "BS"), which is a corporation that carries on waste management business, to acquire 20% of the shares in the amount of 5 billion won, and the main contents are as follows. B. KimB paid 3 billion won in total to AB on May 3, 2005 and May 23, 2005, respectively, to BB on May 26, 2005, and acquired 10,000 shares (20%, 100,000 won per share) in the name of KimB at the time of establishment of BBS.

"A. 2.0 billion won of the above 5.0 billion won of the 5.0 billion won of the above shares were required to be paid to KimB, KimB to prepare an agreement with the ASEAN on December 12, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement in this case")," and "B. 1,500 shares (3% of shares) were 2,750 won of the total purchase price 4,125,000 won of the above shares and 2.3 billion won of the above shares were 1.0 billion won of the above shares and 3.0 billion won of the 2.0 billion won of the above shares and 1.0 billion won of the 2.3 billion won of the above shares, 2.0 billion won of the above shares were 4,00 won of the above shares and 1.0 billion won of the gift agreement, 3.0 billion won of the above shares and 3.0 billion won of the shares were 5.0 billion won of the gift agreement, and 1.08 billion won of the above shares.

G. Based on the instant agreement as of December 12, 2007 and the instant conciliation as of August 11, 2009, the Defendant considered that KimB acquired KRW 11,500 shares of BBS in KRW 2 billion ( KRW 173,913 per share), and assessed the value per share of the instant shares as of February 8, 2013 as of the revised declaration as of February 8, 2013, as of the instant donation, as of February 12, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 311,02,520 as to the gift tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since KimB did not consent to and did not know that the Plaintiff was registered as a shareholder in the BBS register in the name of the Plaintiff, the deemed donation of title trust is unlawful.

2) The share transfer price of KRW 2 billion indicated in the instant agreement is not pure share purchase price, but a waste disposal business starts in reality with a license and license, and includes the incidental value of the business’s monopoly and management participation. In addition, 2 billion won, which was decided to receive by KimB at the time of the instant conciliation, was determined by KimB to renounce management participation, etc. and to settle all disputes. Thus, the pure share price at the time of the instant donation cannot be deemed to be the net share price at the time of the instant donation. Accordingly, there was an error in calculating excessive stock price.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The non-existence of the title trust agreement

The provision on deemed donation under Article 45-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply in cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner register in the future of the nominal owner under an agreement or communication with respect to the property which requires the transfer or exercise of the right, and thus, registration is not applied in cases where the actual owner unilaterally registers in the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. In such cases, when the tax authority proves only that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, the verification that the real owner was made in the unilateral act of the real owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, such as the registration in the nominal owner, must be made by the nominal owner who asserts such act (see, e.g., Supreme

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the shares of this case were registered as the plaintiff regardless of the plaintiff's intention, and rather, according to the gift contract (Evidence A 2) submitted by the plaintiff, KimB only recognized that the shares of this case were donated to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

2) The assertion that the value of stocks is excessively assessed

In the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, where there is a fact that they are traded, the value of the stocks shall be evaluated by considering the market value as the market value and shall not be evaluated by the supplementary evaluation method stipulated in the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, the market value means the objective exchange price formed by the general and normal transaction. Thus, in order to recognize the market value as the market value, the circumstances should be recognized that the relevant transaction was made in a general and normal manner and the objective exchange value at the time of the donation should be appropriately reflected (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26988, Apr. 26, 201

Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) there are no cases of trading the instant stocks other than the instant agreement, (ii) the value of property subject to gift tax, as of the date of donation, should be based on the market price as of the date of donation. At the time of donation, BS has no business performance at all at the time of the donation, and (iii) the right to receive the monthly salary of 15 billion won as an officer’s monthly wage and 2 billion won as at the time of the agreement includes the right to receive the stocks at the time of the agreement, and thus it is difficult to view that the value of the stocks is reflected in the objective exchange value when only the stocks are transferred. ④ At the time of the instant adjustment, 2 billion won as determined by the above adjustment was under the status of obtaining a waste disposal license for the instant stocks, and 2 billion won as determined in compensation for the dispute, and thus, the above amount also should be determined at the market price of 1.5 billion won per share at the time of the instant donation.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the value of the instant shares was KRW 173,913 per share at the time of the instant donation was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.