2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 107,340,60 on May 11, 2017 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office; the imposition of KRW 50,890,010 (the donations made before May 9, 201) on Plaintiff Kim○-○ on May 12, 2017; the imposition of KRW 41,551,200 (the donations made before March 5, 2012); the imposition of gift tax of KRW 22,683,30 on September 15, 2017; the imposition of gift tax of KRW 81,142,290 on Plaintiff○-○ on May 11, 2017; the imposition of gift tax of KRW 50,00 on Plaintiff Kim○-○; and the imposition of gift tax of KRW 222,683,300 on Plaintiff ○-○ on May 11, 2017; the imposition of gift tax of KRW 290, May 319, 2019.

2. Purport of appeal

The portion exceeding 62,00,000 won (additional tax) out of the imposition of gift tax of KRW 107,340,60 on May 11, 2017 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office on Plaintiff ○○○○ on the part of the imposition of KRW 107,340,60, and the portion exceeding 27,914,000 among the imposition of gift tax of KRW 50,890,010 on May 12, 2017 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office on the part of the imposition of KRW 50,914,00 (Additional tax) and the portion exceeding KRW 24,00,00 among the imposition of gift tax of KRW 41,551,20,00 (Additional tax) and the portion exceeding KRW 222,683,300 on September 15, 201, Defendant ○○ Tax Office over KRW 13,83,000 (Additional tax).

On May 11, 2017, the head of a tax office’s tax office’s disposition of KRW 93,490,200 of the gift tax imposed on Plaintiff Lee ○○○○ on May 11, 201, which exceeds KRW 54,00,000, respectively, shall be revoked.

The reasons for this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, '1. The reasons for this decision are as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding a decision on the plaintiffs' assertion that is emphasized or added by this court.

this shall be cited as it is.

[The part of the shares of ○○ Development Co., Ltd. held by ○○○○ is not nominal trust by ○○, but rather by ○○○○○, and the claim that Plaintiff Kim○ is a beneficial shareholder or the Plaintiffs did not have any purpose of tax avoidance and that the imposition of additional tax is in violation of the Constitution, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by ○○○ Development Co., Ltd., along with the evidence, is recognized as legitimate.

2. Parts to be dried;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs acquired shares (hereinafter “the shares of this case”) of ○ Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○ Industry Development”), ○○ Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Comprehensive Construction”), ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Development”), ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Development”), and ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the shares of this case”).

B. In fact, the instant shares were nominal trust by Kim○, a beneficial shareholder of the instant stock company, to the Plaintiffs.

C. From June 30, 2016 to March 31, 2017, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax (tax offense) with the instant stock company as the subject of tax investigation, and around that time, conducted a separate gift tax investigation on Plaintiff Kim○ and Kim Il-tae. Since Kim○ was deemed to have held the instant shares in title trust with the Plaintiffs, Kim○○ was deemed to have held the instant shares in title trust, and notified the Defendants of the results thereof.

D. Accordingly, the Defendants determined and notified the Plaintiff of gift tax and additional tax (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

D. On June 28, 2017, June 29, 2017, June 2017, 2017, June 30, 2017, June 30, 2017, and November 13, 2017, the Tax Tribunal requested the revocation of each of the dispositions in the instant case. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed all of the plaintiffs' appeals on September 19, 2017 and May 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5 to 23, 30, 31, 49 to 52

Each entry of evidence (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleading

3. Determination on addition

A. Whether there was a procedural error in the process of executing each of the dispositions of this case against the plaintiffs after conducting a tax investigation on the stock company of this case

1) Although there is no dispute between the parties on March 5, 2012, the date of deemed donation does not exist between the parties on March 5, 2012, the date of donation under the resolution of gift tax decision (Evidence No. 5) on the Plaintiff ○○ is March 13, 2012.

2) Although there is no dispute between the parties on November 12, 2008, the date of deemed donation does not exist between the parties on November 12, 2008, the date of donation under the resolution of gift tax decision (Evidence No. 6) on the plaintiff Kim ○ is " November 18, 2008."

3) Although there is no dispute between the parties on March 5, 2012, the date of deemed donation does not exist between the parties on March 5, 2012, the date of donation under the resolution of gift tax decision (Evidence No. 7) on Plaintiff Lee Jong-sung is March 13, 2012.

4) Although there is no dispute between the parties on March 5, 2012, the date of deemed donation does not exist between the parties on March 5, 2012, the date of donation under the resolution of gift tax decision (Evidence No. 9) on Plaintiff Kim Tae-tae is March 13, 2012.

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A) Although the tax authority conducted a tax investigation on the instant stock company, it is not permitted under the Constitution to impose tax on the Plaintiffs based on the data obtained in the process, as it violates due process.

B) In addition, since the tax investigation on the shares issued by the stock company of this case is a tax investigation on the plaintiffs' stock acquisition, a tax official is obligated to notify the plaintiffs of the results of the tax investigation pursuant to Article 81-12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes when the investigation is completed. Each of the dispositions of this case was conducted without such notification.

2) Determination

A) According to the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes and other tax-related Acts, when tax liability is established and determined, taxpayers are obligated to pay the determined amount of tax as a matter of course. If the taxation data legally secured by the tax authority after conducting a tax investigation pursuant to the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes includes some of the taxation data of a third party, not those subject to the tax investigation, the taxation can be imposed on the third party on the basis of the data. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part

B) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 49 through 52, it is recognized that the notice of the results of the tax investigation on the shares entrusted in the name of the Plaintiff Kim○ and Kim○○ was given to the Plaintiff Kim○ and Kim○○. Thus, the part on the Plaintiff Kim○ and Kim○, among the plaintiffs' claims, in this part of the plaintiffs' claims, is without merit without any further review.

Meanwhile, there is no dispute between the parties as to the failure to give notice of the result of the tax investigation on the plaintiff ○○ and Lee ○○, but there is a very high probability that the taxation data of a third party related to the tax investigation will be investigated and verified when a tax investigation on any taxpayer is conducted. If the tax liability of a third party confirmed in the process is established and confirmed as to the taxation data of the third party, the tax authority can, as a matter of course, impose a taxation on the third party. Considering the contents of the tax investigation and the pre-assessment review prescribed in Articles 81-6 through 17 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the tax investigation is based on the premise of the specific "person subject to investigation". Thus, even if the taxation data on the third party other than the person subject to the tax investigation were verified, it is difficult to view that the result of the tax investigation was illegal for the third party in the process of not notifying the third party of the result of the tax investigation. Therefore, if the taxation data on the person other than the person subject to the tax investigation is conducted in accordance with the taxation data, it cannot be deemed unlawful for the third party.

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

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the first instance is just, and therefore, the appeal by the plaintiffs is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.