Cho Jae-2013-Seoul Government-2099 ( October 22, 2013)

Cho Jae-2013-Seoul Office-2546 (O2, 2013)

Where there is a low price transfer for several years between the same non-specially related persons, 300 million won shall be deducted for each transaction when calculating the value of donated property.

Where property is acquired or transferred at a low price or at a low price during several years between the same non-specially related persons, 300 million won deduction shall be made every transaction when calculating the value of donated property.

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act Article 35(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Donations of profits from transfer at low prices

Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: The method, etc. for calculating profits from a transfer of low price or high price

2013Guhap53950 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

1.A

2.B

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

September 19, 2014

November 7, 2014

1. The part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the imposition of the gift tax on the gift of December 31, 2008, the imposition of the OOOOO on the gift of December 31, 2009, the imposition of the OOOOO on the gift of December 31, 2009, the respective claim for revocation of the imposition of the OOOOOO on the gift of December 30, 2010, and the part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the imposition of the gift tax on the gift of December 30, 2010.

2. On February 8, 2012, the Defendant revoked both the imposition of OOOOO on the gift of December 31, 2008 against the Plaintiff EA, the imposition of the KRW OOO of the gift of December 31, 2009, the imposition of the KRW OO of the gift of December 31, 2009, the imposition of the KRW OOO of the gift of December 30, 2010, the imposition of the KRW OOO of the gift of December 30, 2010, the imposition of the KRW OOO of the gift of December 30, 201, and the imposition of the KRW OO of the gift of December 30, 201

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of OOOO on the gift of December 31, 2008 against Plaintiff EA on February 8, 2012, the imposition of OOOOO on the gift of December 31, 2008, the imposition of OOOOOO on the gift of December 31, 209, the imposition of OOOOOO on the gift of December 30, 2010, and the imposition of the gift tax on Plaintiff EB on the gift of this case.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs acquired the shares issued by the FFF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "company of this case") from the FFF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "company of this case") from the ECC, KimD, and KimE as shown in the table: (i) the shares acquired by the director on December 31, 2008 from thisCC; (ii) the shares acquired on December 31, 2009 from thisCC; (iii) the shares acquired on December 30, 2010 from KimD; (iv) the shares acquired on December 30, 2010; and (v) the shares acquired on December 30, 2010 by the plaintiffB referred to as "the shares in this case"; and (v) the shares in this case.

List of votes

A transferee

Date of transaction

transferor

Number of Stocks

A per share

Amount of transfer;

A per share

Market Price

IsaA

November 30, 2007

CC

2,000 Shares

OOO

OOO

December 31, 2008

CC

6,100 Shares

OOO

OOO

December 31, 2009

CC

6,180 Shares

OOO

OOO

December 30, 2010

D Kim D Kim

9,600 Shares

OOO

OOO

Total

14,280

BB

December 30, 2010

KimE

8,080 Shares

OOO

OOO

B.1) As a result of the investigation of changes in stocks with respect to the instant company, the director of the Central District Tax Office assessed the net profit and loss value per share and net asset value per share in accordance with the supplementary evaluation method under Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) in accordance with the weighted average ratio of 3 and 2 of the market value as of the transfer date of the instant stocks, and notified the Plaintiffs of the result of the tax investigation to levy gift tax on November 11, 201 by deeming that the Plaintiffs acquired the 1, 2 stocks from thisCC without special relationship at a price significantly lower than the market value.

2) The Plaintiffs, dissatisfied with this, filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Director of the Central District Tax Office, but received a decision of non-adopted on January 20, 2012.

C. On the other hand, on December 1, 201, 201, before the decision of non-adopted by the director of the Central District Tax Office, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff EA of KRW 2OOO on December 31, 2008, KRW OOO on the gift as of December 31, 2009, KRW OO on the gift as of December 30, 201, KRW OO on the gift as of December 30, 2010, KRW 10 on the gift as of December 30, 201, and KRW 2OB on the Plaintiff EB, respectively, on February 8, 2012, which was after the decision of non-adopted by the director of the Central District Tax Office, again notified the Plaintiff EA of KRW OO on December 31, 208, KRW OB on the gift gift as of December 31, 2009, KRW OB on the gift.

D. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 9, 2012, but was dismissed on February 22, 2013.

E. 1) Meanwhile, the Defendant, while continuing the instant case, corrected land appraisal errors and errors in reserved amount under the Corporate Tax Act, except for the ownership of the instant company, not the instant company, but the ownership of HH (the father of the Plaintiff), on the ground that OOG Ri (hereinafter “GG Ri”) 93-1, 93-7, 94-13, 94-16 ground buildings and GG Ri 93, 94-19, which were included in the assets, were included in the assets, in calculating the net asset value of the instant company during the instant period, and assessed as indicated below the market value of the instant shares by adding the increased corporate tax amount, special rural development tax amount, and resident tax amount to the liabilities.

List of votes

previous evaluation market price

Revaluation Market Price

SU. 1 Stocks

OOOE

OOOE

Section 2. Stocks

OOOE

OOOE

Category 3, 4 Stocks

OOOE

OOOE

2) Accordingly, on July 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) reduced the amount of KRW OO on December 31, 2008 of the Plaintiff’s gift tax of December 31, 2008 to KRW OO; (b) KRW OOO on December 31, 2009; (c) KRW OOO on the gift of December 30, 2010 to KRW OOO on the gift of KRW 30 on December 30, 2010; (d) reduced the amount of KRW OO on the Plaintiff’s gift tax of KRW 20 on this case to KRW OB; and (e) imposed the Plaintiff’s disposition imposing the gift tax of KRW 30 on KRW 40 on the gift of KRW OB on this case; and (e) imposed the Plaintiff’s disposition imposing the gift tax of KRW 1 on KRW 30 on the gift of KRW 2130 on this case.

3) On the other hand, the defendant calculated the value of donated property by adding it to KRW 200,000 [20,000,0000,000,000 won prior to 20,0000,000 won [30,000,000 won prior to 20,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000.00,000,0000,000,000,000,000: 30,000,000,000,000,000: 10,000,000 won prior to 20,000,000,000,000 won [3,000,000 won,000,000 won,0000,000

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part requesting cancellation of the corrected tax amount among the lawsuits in this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff, as of December 31, 2008, sought revocation of the imposition of the KRW OO on gift tax on gift as of December 31, 2008, the portion exceeding the KRW OO (OOO) out of the KRW OO on gift as of December 31, 2009, the imposition of the KRW OO on gift tax on gift as of December 30, 2010, and the imposition of the KRW OOB on gift tax on gift as of December 30, 201, and the Plaintiff B sought revocation of the imposition of the KRW OO on gift tax.

B. On February 8, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW O20 on the gift tax of December 31, 2008, KRW O20 on the gift of KRW 31, 200, KRW O20 on the Plaintiff, and KRW O20 on the Plaintiff’s gift of KRW 30,000 on the gift of KRW 30,000 on the gift of KRW 30,000, KRW 10,000 on the gift of KRW 20,000, KRW 30,000 on the gift of KRW 20,000 on the gift of KRW 30,00 on the gift of KRW 20,00 on the gift of KRW 30,00 on the gift of KRW 10,00 on the gift of KRW 20,00 on the gift of KRW O2,00 on the gift of KRW O20,00 on the gift of KRW 130,000.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The assertion that the value of the instant shares was over-assessment

In calculating the net asset value of the instant company, the Defendant calculated the net asset value of the instant company, without considering the foregoing, although the Defendant calculated the net asset value of the instant company, based on GGri 93-1, 93-7, 94-13, 94-16, 93, 94-19 and the instant building. In addition, Article 55 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and 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. 223, Jul. 26, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) in calculating the net asset value, the corporate tax amount, resident tax, etc. should be added to the liabilities, and the amount of the instant company’s net asset value should be excluded from the liabilities. As such, when reflecting the corporate tax amount, resident tax, reserves, etc., the market value of the first stock shall be OOO, OOO, 3, and 4 stocks.

2) Claim as to the first disposition

The value of the Plaintiff and thisCC should be calculated as the value of donated property calculated by subtracting KRW 300 million from the difference between the consideration and the market value pursuant to Article 26(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, the market value of the first shares shall be deemed the market value of the Plaintiff, and shall be deducted from KRW 300 million from the difference between the consideration and the market value. Since the deduction of KRW 300 million from the difference between the consideration and the market value is [OO(OO-OO(6,100)] - 300 million = 300 million from the value of donated property to the Plaintiff is the value of donated property to the Plaintiff. Even if the market value of the first shares should be deducted from KRW 100,000,000 calculated by the Defendant, not KRW 30,000,000,000,000 from KRW 30,000,000 from the market value [O-O(300,000.).

3) The allegation as to the second disposition

A) Claim to exclude aggregation

Article 2(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 31-10(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, when calculating the value of donated property of the Plaintiff thisA on December 31, 2009, the Defendant added up the value of donated property on December 31, 2008. However, Article 2(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that in cases where the taxpayer conducts an act of unreasonably reducing or excluding tax burden by selecting the bypassing or multi-leveling without choice of the ordinary legal form or form of transaction in a certain economic activity, the taxation authority shall not only deny it and unreasonably reduce it to the taxpayer, but also it shall not be applicable to the shares transaction on December 31, 2008 with a period of one year between the two contracts. In addition, Article 2(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the said provision shall not apply to the said transaction without any special relationship between the Plaintiff and the two parties.

B) argument relating to the amount of tax

Since there is no special relation between the plaintiff thisA and thisCC, the market price of the second shares shall be calculated as the value of donated property less than 300 million won under Article 26 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. If the market price of the second shares is deemed as the value of OOO calculated by thisA, and the amount of donated property to the plaintiff thisA is deducted from the difference between the market price and the consideration, the value of donated property to the plaintiff thisA shall be KRW 100 million. - 300 million if the gift tax against the plaintiff is calculated based on this, the excess portion of the second disposition shall be revoked. Even if the market price of the second shares is calculated by the plaintiff, the amount of donated property to the plaintiff shall be deemed as the KRW 300,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000 won - - 300,000,000 won.

4) The assertion on measures 3 and 4

A) Claim for cancellation of a stock acquisition agreement

The Plaintiffs entered into a contract on the acquisition of shares with KimD, KimE on December 30, 2010, but rescinded the agreement on January 10, 201. As such, pursuant to Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Plaintiffs, KimD, and KimE shall be deemed to have never existed a donation from the beginning. Accordingly, the third and fourth dispositions shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B) argument relating to the amount of tax

Although the defendant had a special relationship with KimD and KimE, the plaintiffs, KimD and KimE do not constitute a special relationship under Articles 26(4) and 19(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Therefore, the value of 300 million won should be calculated as the value of donated property under Article 26 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. If the market price of 300 million won and 4 shares is deducted from the difference between the price calculated by the Plaintiffs, the value of donated property to 100 million won and 300 million won shall be calculated as the value of donated property to 200 million won and that of 300 million won [30 million won] of the value of donated property to 200,000 won and 300,000 won [30,000 won] of the value of donated property to 200,000 won and 300,000 won to 20,000 won to 300,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 4,000.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the instant company on November 3, 2003 with respect to GGri 93-1 factory site on June 28, 1984; GGri 93-7 factory site on November 3, 2003 with respect to 1,772 square meters.

2) As to GGri 94-13 1,453 m2, Nov. 28, 1986; as to GGri 94-16 m2, Sep. 12, 1988 with respect to 154 m2, GGri 93 m2, GGri 93 m2, GGri 94-19 m232 m2, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under H’s name on December 12, 1986.

3) In calculating the net asset value of the instant company, the Defendant did not include the land of GG Ri 94-13, 94-16, 93, 94-19 where the ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of H.

4) Around February 2011, KimD and KimE reported the tax base of capital gains tax and securities transaction tax on the transfer of 3 and 4 stocks.

5) The statement of the change of stocks, etc. in the 2010 business year of the instant company stated that KimD transferred the 3th share to the Plaintiff Lee Dong-A, and that KimE transferred the 4th share to the Plaintiff Lee Dong-B. However, the statement of the change of stocks, etc. in the 2011 business year of the instant company stated that the 3th and 4th shares are held by KimD and KimE.

6) On November 201, 201, this H was investigated by the Central Regional Tax Office and signed a written confirmation of the following content:

1. In trading the shares of the Company as follows, I confirm that the shares of the Company have been traded as OOO per share without assessing the value of the shares at the time of trading.

Name of shareholders

Date of transaction

Number of shares (number of shares)

Jinay

Transferors

transferee and transferee

CC

IsaA

November 30, 2007

2,000

CC

December 31, 2008

6,100

CC

December 31, 2009

6,180

D Kim D Kim

December 30, 2010

9,600

KimE

BB

December 30, 2010

8,080

2. It confirms that there is no difference from the facts stated by the principal, and there is no additional statement in relation to the above statement.

7) The Plaintiffs, KimD, and KimE drafted a written agreement on cancellation of transfer and acquisition of stocks with respect to the third and fourth stocks, and the written agreement is written on January 10, 201.

8) At the time when the plaintiffs received 3 and 4 shares from KimD and KimE, H, the father of the plaintiffs, as the representative director of the company of this case, owned 90,540 shares (45.27%) out of 200,000 shares issued by the company of this case as the representative director of the company of this case, and KimD and KimE had worked as the vice president or director of the company of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 16, 31 through 34, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the value of the instant shares was over-assessment

A) According to Article 63(1)1(c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Articles 54(2) and 55(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 17-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the net asset value per share divided by the net asset value of the total issued and outstanding shares and the net asset value per share and the net asset value per share shall be assessed by the weighted average value of 2 and 3, respectively. The net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the base date of appraisal shall be the value obtained by deducting the liabilities from the appraised value under Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. In this case, the corporate tax amount on the income accrued until the base date of appraisal, the amount of reduction or exemption of corporate tax or the amount of special rural development tax and the resident tax to be earned by the tax base shall be added to the liabilities

B) In light of the following circumstances: (a) GGri 93-1,93-7 land owned by the Plaintiffs was owned by the instant company; (b) GGri 94-13, 94-16, 93, 94-19 land was not included in the calculation of net asset value of the instant company; (c) the instant building owned by this HH was excluded from the Defendant’s assets at the time of the reduction of gift tax; (b) the amount of corporate tax on income accrued until the date when the reduction of gift tax was corrected; and (c) the amount of corporate tax on income accrued by the Defendant at the time of the reduction of gift tax; and (c) the amount of net assets calculated by adding the amount of corporate tax on income accrued until the date when the reduction of gift tax was corrected to the liabilities; but (d) the Plaintiffs asserted that the amount of the instant company’s net assets calculated by the Defendant is reasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s net asset value is without merit.

2) As to the argument regarding the first disposition

A) Since there is no dispute between Plaintiff A and thisCC, Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply to the transfer or acquisition of shares between Plaintiff A and thisCC. However, Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that an amount equivalent to the "profit prescribed by the Presidential Decree" shall be presumed as a donation of an amount equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price only in a case where a person, other than a person having a special relationship, acquires the property by transfer without any justifiable reason, and without any justifiable reason, takes over the property. Article 26(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides, upon delegation of the above provision, that the amount calculated by subtracting the price from the market price is 30/10 or more of the market price, and Article 26(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the "profit prescribed by the Presidential Decree" shall be deducted from the market price by the amount calculated by subtracting 300 million won or more from the market price.

B) The market value of the first shares is KRW 6,100 (O.O. x 100) and the price is KRW 6,100 (O. x 100) as seen earlier. Since the value after deducting the price from the market value is at least 30/100 (O. 30%) of the current value, it can be said that the acquisition of the first shares by the Plaintiff is 30/100 or more of the current value. However, since the difference between the market value and the value of the donated property by the Plaintiff is 30,000,000 won and the value of the donated property by 10,000,000 or more (O. 20,000,0000 won) is 30,000,000 won or more, the value of the donated property by the Plaintiff is 10,000,000 won or more (O. 20,000,000 won).

3) As to the argument on the second disposition

A) As to the assertion that aggregate exclusion is excluded

Based on Article 2(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 31-10(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Defendant calculated the value of donated property of the Plaintiff A on December 31, 2009, and added up the value of donated property on December 31, 2008.

However, Article 2(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that if a taxpayer undergoes two or more acts or transactions for the purpose of evading taxes, he/she shall have the economic substance of the transaction, which would result in an inappropriate taxation on the whole transaction. Therefore, in order to prevent such taxation, he/she shall be treated as a single act or transaction with two or more acts or transactions as an integrated transaction and shall be regarded as a single act or transaction consecutively conducted in order to prevent it. Since a transaction of stocks as of December 31, 2008 exists separately at intervals of one year between them, it is reasonable to deem that Article 2(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied to this case.

In addition, Article 31-10 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that in the calculation of profits from a transfer at a low price under Article 26 (1) of the same Act and profits from a transfer at a high price under Article 31-10 (2) of the same Act, where there is an identical transaction, etc. within one year retroactively from the date of the transaction, etc. related to the corresponding profits, the amount of profits from each transaction, etc. (referring to the difference between the market price and the consideration) shall be calculated by adding the profits from each transaction, etc. to the corresponding profits, and Article 26 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that Article 35 (1) 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be applied to the transaction between Plaintiff A and thisCC, which are not related parties.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, in calculating the value of donated property of the Plaintiff A on December 31, 2009 under Article 47(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act from the legal brief dated April 17, 2014 of this case, the value of donated property of the Plaintiff BA on December 31, 2008 should be added to the value of donated property of the Plaintiff BA on December 31, 2008. However, as seen earlier, there is no value of donated property of the date of November 30, 207 and that there was no value of donated property of the date of December 31, 2008, the said provision cannot be applied to the Plaintiff A, since there is no evidence to support that the sum of donated property received from thisCC on December 31, 2009 within 10 years prior to the transaction of shares as of December 31, 209.

Therefore, the Defendant’s calculation of the value of donated property of Plaintiff Lee A on December 31, 2009 is unlawful to add up the value of donated property of December 31, 2008.

B) As to the assertion on tax amount

Since there is no dispute between the plaintiff A and thisCC, the value of donated property of December 31, 2009 shall be calculated by calculating the value of donated property of December 31, 2009 as the amount of donated property of December 31, 2009 under Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 26(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act [=OOO(=6,180 note XO)] and the price [=OOO(=6,180 note XO)] less KRW 300 million from the difference (OOOO won). Thus, the defendant calculated the amount of gift tax by calculating the value of donated property of December 31, 2009 as the amount of gift tax of December 31, 2009 and calculating the amount of gift tax of the defendant.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

4) As to the argument regarding the third and fourth dispositions

A) On January 10, 2011, the Plaintiffs submitted a written agreement on the transfer of stocks (Evidence 5) as of January 10, 201, by asserting that they had rescinded the agreement on the transfer of stocks with KimD and KimE on January 10, 201, but KimD and KimE thereafter reported the tax base of capital gains tax and securities transaction tax on transfer of 3 and 4 stocks on February 201. ② A corporation with changes in stocks, etc. in its business year should, in principle, submit to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment a detailed statement of change in stocks, etc. (Article 119(1) and Article 60 of the Corporate Tax Act). In light of the fact that the instant company reported corporate tax for the business year of 2010, and there is no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiffs were transferred to the Plaintiff 1, as alleged by the Plaintiff, within 10th of the 3th anniversary of the date of the end of the pertinent business year.

B) As to the assertion on tax amount

(1) First, we examine whether the Plaintiffs have a special relationship with KimD and KimE. The Defendant asserted that in the preparatory brief dated January 17, 2014 of this case, this case’s relationship between EH and the Plaintiffs, KimD and KimE are the employees of the instant company in which EH invested at least 30%, the Plaintiffs, KimD and KimE constituted a special relationship under Article 26(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Article 26 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that a non-profit corporation or a corporation, etc. (Article 19 (2) 4 through 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) in which a person, other than an employee or employee of a transferor or transferee, who maintains his livelihood with the property of a transferor or transferee, who has been established by a person who has a specific relationship with a transferor or transferee either accounts for a majority of directors or contributes the property of the transferor or transferee (Article 19 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), and Article 19 (2) 4 through 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Article 19 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act). However, Kim D or KimE does not fall under a non-profit corporation with a specific relationship with the transferor or transferee and the spouse of his lineal ascendant or descendant within the second degree of relationship with the transferee or transferee, and thus, it does not fall under the grounds of the plaintiffs.

(2) As long as the Plaintiffs and KimD and KimE are not in a special relationship, the value of the donated property of the Plaintiff B on December 30, 2010 is the amount obtained by subtracting KRW 300 million from the difference between the market price and the consideration under Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 26(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. In the calculation under such a formula, the value of the donated property of the Plaintiff A is calculated by calculating the value of the donated property of the Plaintiff A [OO(=9,600 xOO) - OO(=9,600 xOO) -OO(20 x0 x0 x0 x0 x 30 xOE) -OE(30 xOE 50 x30 xOE -OE 5 -OE -OE - 30 -3 oE - 5 -3 oE -.

5) Scope of revocation

A) Determination on the legitimacy of a disposition in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition is based on whether it exceeds a legitimate tax amount. The parties concerned may submit objective tax bases and materials in support of the tax amount until the conclusion of the fact-finding trial. When a legitimate tax amount to be imposed lawfully is calculated based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount should be revoked, but in such case, the entire tax disposition should not be revoked. In such a case, the court does not have the duty to actively and actively calculate a reasonable and reasonable calculation method and does not impose a reasonable and reasonable tax amount upon its official authority, and thus, if it is impossible to calculate a legitimate tax amount, the entire tax disposition shall be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13527, Apr. 28, 1995). However, the materials presented in the argument of this case alone cannot be calculated on December 31, 2009 with respect to Plaintiff A, and the part exceeding the OOO personnel as sought by Plaintiff 2 should be revoked.

(B) On the other hand, when calculating the value of donated property of December 30, 2010 according to the formula of "(market price - consideration - KRW 300 million)", the reasonable amount of tax shall be determined as the OOO in the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the OOO in the case of the plaintiff LeeB, and the more than the OOOO in the case of the third and fourth dispositions, and the more than the OOO in the case of the fourth dispositions shall be revoked illegally."

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits of thisA, the imposition of OOOO on the gift of this case as of December 31, 2009, the imposition of OOOOOO on the gift of this case as of December 31, 2009, the respective revocation claim on the imposition of OOOOOO on the gift of this case as of December 30, 2010, and the part on the revocation claim on the imposition of the gift tax of this case as of December 30, 2010, and the part on the revocation claim on the imposition of the gift tax of this case as of this caseB, are unlawful, and all of them are dismissed. The revocation claim on the portion exceeding OOOO in the first and second dispositions of thisA is accepted for reasons. The plaintiffs' claim on the revocation of the third and fourth dispositions is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed for reasons. It is so decided as per Disposition.