early 201st century 2026 ( October 24, 2011)

investment securities held by a corporation that issued stocks subject to evaluation shall be subject to an increase in the amount of investment securities subject to evaluation if the shares are the largest shareholder

It is reasonable to view that only a disposition of increase or correction is subject to an appeal litigation, and that the taxpayer can also claim the illegality of the initial report or decision in the appeal litigation, and that it falls under the largest shareholder of the first invested corporation, including shares in the issuing corporation and specially related persons, in evaluating the net assets of the stock-listed corporation subject to evaluation.

2011Guhap39936 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimAA 2 others

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

June 12, 2012

July 12, 2012

1. Of the lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs KimB, the part on the claim for revocation of the disposition of gift tax on April 1, 201 and the lawsuit filed by Plaintiff KimCC shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff KimA's claims and the plaintiff KimB's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

On February 15, 200, the part exceeding KRW 00, among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 00,000 against Plaintiff KimB, and the part exceeding KRW 00,000, among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 00,000, and the part exceeding KRW 00,000, among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 00,000 against Plaintiff KimA on April 1, 201, and on April 111, 201, the part exceeding KRW 00,00, among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 00,00,000, imposed on Plaintiff KimB, shall be revoked. The part imposing gift tax of KRW 00,00,000, more than KRW 0,000, and the part imposing gift tax of KRW 00,00,00, more than KRW 0,00,00,000, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs received shares issued by GG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GG”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”), which are relatives, KimD, and KimEM, from the unlisted company (hereinafter referred to as “GG”), as listed below, and the Plaintiffs owned approximately 73% of the issued shares of GG, including shares in a specially related party, and were in the largest shareholder of GG.

B. The Plaintiffs reported and paid gift tax within the gift tax return period by appraising the premium on the instant shares to the largest shareholders, etc. under Article 63(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), and the Defendants, on June 1, 2008, issued a notice of correction and notification of gift tax (hereinafter referred to as "LI correction") to the Plaintiffs on the grounds that the point of time of evaluation of the instant shares was erroneous, and on July 1, 2010 (However, the date of correction and notification of Plaintiff KimCC is November 6, 2009) by reflecting the increase in income for each business year in the corporate tax investigation on GG, thereby revising the gift tax again (hereinafter referred to as "second correction"). The following table is as follows.

C. On February 1, 2011, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an evaluation of the shares issued by H Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "H Construction") and HH (hereinafter referred to as "H") in the course of audit of the Defendants, it did not conduct an evaluation of the premium on the largest shareholder pursuant to Article 63(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the part") but did not apply the premium provision on the largest shareholder, etc. under Article 63(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in assessing the shares of this case because GG fell under a small or medium enterprise (hereinafter referred to as "B portion"), but it did not make an evaluation of the premium amount under the same provision, and the director of Yongsan Tax Office issued an order to correct it, and the director of the tax office issued a revised notice to the plaintiff Kim Jong-B, and the director of the tax office issued a revised notice to the plaintiff Kim Jong-B, and the director of the tax office issued a revised notice to the plaintiff 20th of the tax office.

E. (1) Of the instant Disposition No. 1, Plaintiff KimA appealed with respect to the imposition of gift tax on February 15, 2011 (e.g., GeD, GeEE gift), and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 28, 2011, and was dismissed on August 24, 2011, and was dissatisfied with the imposition of gift tax on April 1, 2011 among the instant Disposition No. 1, Plaintiff KimA filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 29, 2011, but was dismissed on October 27, 2011.

② On February 7, 2011, Plaintiff KimB, among the instant Disposition No. 2, appealed against the imposition of gift tax (ED, KimE gift) on February 7, 2011, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 27, 2011, and was dismissed on August 24, 2011.

③ Plaintiff KimCC alleged that the refundable tax amount should be KRW 000,000, not KRW 000, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 29, 201, but was dismissed on October 27, 201.

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (if available, including the number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Main Safety Defenses by the Defendants

1) Plaintiff KimCC’s lawsuit

The director of the tax office, and the tax office's ex officio refund of part of the tax amount originally paid to the taxpayer is not disadvantageous to the taxpayer, so it cannot be subject to a revocation lawsuit, and the plaintiff KimCC did not go through a request for correction or a request for appeal against the already finalized tax amount, and therefore, the plaintiff KimCC's lawsuit is unlawful.

2) On April 1, 2011, part of the Plaintiff KimB’s lawsuit demanding revocation of the imposition of one’s gift tax (fixedF gift)

The director of the tax office, among the lawsuits by plaintiffs KimB, on April 1, 2011, claims for revocation of the imposition of gift tax on April 1, 2011 are asserted as unlawful because they did not follow the procedure of the preceding trial.

3) Of the Plaintiff KimA’s lawsuits and the rest of Plaintiff KimB (the part claiming revocation of the gift tax imposition disposition on February 7, 201), the Defendants, seeking revocation in excess of the respective increased portion, and the Defendants, seeking revocation in excess of the existing determined tax amount on the grounds of the issues disputed in the present issue, are unreasonable, and Plaintiff KimA, and KimB did not go through a light or appeal procedure on the existing determined tax amount. Therefore, the part claiming revocation in excess of the respective increased portion among the Plaintiff KimA’s lawsuits and the rest of Plaintiff KimB’s other claims, which were sought by the Plaintiff KimB, is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Plaintiff KimCC’s lawsuit

(2) After the initial disposition, the tax base and amount of tax were determined as original disposition, and when the tax authority reduced the tax amount by ex officio after the determination of correction, the revocation of the correction disposition cannot be claimed. This same applies to cases where the total tax amount has been reduced as a result of the reduction of some items at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8904, Nov. 15, 1996). In addition, the correction disposition is not the initial disposition and the separate tax disposition, but its substance is the change of the initial disposition, and thus it still remains illegal, the determination of revocation of the correction disposition should be made based on the initial disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 90Du3211, May 26, 1998). In addition, in the case where the above correction disposition is asserted against the Plaintiff, 100 won, which is the initial disposition of correction (see Supreme Court Decision 90Du100, Nov. 15, 1996). 20).

2) Of the lawsuits filed by Plaintiff KimB, the part on the claim for revocation of the disposition of gift tax on April 1, 201 (prof capital increase)

According to Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, administrative litigation seeking revocation of a disposition under tax-related Acts is not possible if it goes through a prior trial procedure, such as a request for examination or a request for trial under the same Act. Therefore, there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff KimB did not go through a prior trial procedure on April 1, 201, while the part on the claim for revocation of the disposition of gift tax on April 1, 201 among the plaintiff KimB's lawsuit, the part on the claim for revocation of the disposition of gift tax on April 1, 201, which was made on April 1, 201, is unlawful because it did not go through a legitimate prior trial procedure. This part of the defense by the defendant KimB has merit.

3) Article 22-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an increase in the amount of tax initially determined under tax-related Acts shall not affect the rights and obligations under this Act or other tax-related Acts," while considering the language and content of the above provision and its main legislative purpose are to limit any objection to the amount of tax initially determined in the initial return or determination after the lapse of the objection period, etc., if a increase in the amount of tax is made, it should be deemed that the initial return or determination would lose its independent value because the initial return or determination would be absorbed into the increase in the amount of tax, and in principle, it is reasonable to view that only the increase in the amount of tax would be subject to an appeal litigation without relation to the lapse of the objection period against the initial return or determination, and that the person liable for tax payment would also be able to claim revocation of the amount of tax initially determined in the appeal litigation, and that the Defendants may not seek revocation of the increase in the amount of tax already determined in the final return or determination within the limit of the amount of tax so increased (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20010Du136300.2.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In evaluating the instant shares, HH Construction is the first invested corporation under Article 53(5)3 (hereinafter “instant provision”) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18108, Sept. 29, 2003; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”). HH is the second investing corporation under the instant provision, and H is the second investing corporation, and HH Construction, the first investing corporation, and the second investing corporation, HH, which is the second investing corporation, should be excluded from the application of the provision on appraisal of evidence to the largest shareholder, etc. under the instant provision. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

At the time when the Plaintiffs received the instant shares, GG owned approximately 52% of the issued shares of H Construction and was in the status of the largest shareholder of HH construction. Meanwhile, HH construction held approximately 23% of the issued shares of H, and GG held approximately 1.76% of the issued shares of H and held approximately 45% of the issued shares of H, including shares in a specially related person, and HG was in the status of the largest shareholder of H.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Evidence A 8, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

1) Provisions and interpretation related to the evaluation of certificates of largest shareholders, etc.

Article 63 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the first shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the largest shareholder, and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder. The second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder. The second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second investing corporation shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder and the second shareholder shall be the second shareholder.

It is reasonable to view that an investing corporation’s assessment of stocks held by the investing corporation means an assessment of stocks held by the investing corporation. Therefore, in cases of assessing stocks held by the primary investing corporation or the secondary investing corporation, the application of the premium assessment to the largest shareholder, etc. is excluded pursuant to the instant provision, but in cases of assessing stocks held by the issuing corporation, the instant provision does not apply.

2) In assessing the shares issued by H Construction and H, as seen earlier, whether the instant provision applies to the assessment of the shares held by GG, as seen earlier, it constitutes the largest shareholder, etc. of HG, a primary investing corporation, holding approximately 52% of the shares issued by HG, a corporation that issued the shares subject to assessment at the time of donation of the instant shares. Furthermore, if HG owns approximately 23% of the shares issued by a primary investing corporation, a secondary investing corporation, H construction, another corporation (the secondary investing corporation), and GG owns approximately 1.76% of the outstanding shares of H, including shares issued by its specially related persons, and thereby holding approximately 45% of the outstanding shares of H, and thus, it constitutes the largest shareholder, a secondary investing corporation, the largest shareholder, and the Plaintiff’s shares issued by H construction, as the instant provision, are not subject to the assessment of the shares issued by the instant H construction, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s shares were subject to the assessment of the shares, as the largest shareholder, other than the instant shares issued by the Defendant.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff KimB's claim for revocation of the disposition of gift tax as of April 1, 201 and the plaintiff KimCC's lawsuit are unlawful and all are dismissed, and the plaintiff KimB's claim and the remainder of the plaintiff KimB's claim are dismissed as of April 1, 201.