It is reasonable to view the instant money as a donation, not the transfer cost of trees.

It is reasonable to view that the instant money received by the Plaintiff as a cash donation through a corporation that held a title trust a real estate, not a transfer price for trees.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Guhap75957 Revocation of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.

EA and 1

Head of Nowon Tax Office

June 19, 2015

July 24, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant revoked on March 31, 2014, the imposition of the gift tax of KRW 0,000,000 (including penalty tax) for the year 2003, which was made against the Plaintiff’s Foundation BB, against the Plaintiff’s Foundation BB on December 2, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation BB Foundation (hereinafter “Plaintiff Foundation”) is a nonprofit incorporated foundation established on October 17, 1996 for the purpose of the establishment, operation, etc. of museums and art galleries by the largestCC, which is the mother of the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff Company was appointed as the president of the Plaintiff Foundation on March 22, 2004 as the maximumCC died on December 7, 2003, and on September 24, 2004, the Plaintiff Company was also appointed as the president of the DD Institute that operates the 00 University. Meanwhile, the CE was employed by the Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation and the Plaintiff Company as the auditor of the Plaintiff Company from around 191 to around 2011.

B. On January 5, 1998, Plaintiff Lee Dong-A donated to the Plaintiff Foundation the land of this case, “the land of this case,” “the building of this case,” “the building of this case,” and “the combination of the above site and the building,” and “the real estate of this case,” which was completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 13, 1998, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case, the land of this case was composed of 1 share, fla tree 2 share, 00 0-0 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 -, Seoul, and 00 - 00 - 1,150 - 4 m2.

C. On November 5, 2002, the Plaintiff Foundation entered into a sales contract to sell the instant real estate at KRW 7 billion to GGG, a corporation established for the purpose of reinforced concrete construction business, etc. (hereinafter “GG”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 7, 2002.

D. On April 17, 2003, GG concluded a sales contract to sell the instant real estate with HH, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 29, 2003, and around that time, HH paid KRW 3 billion to GG and KRW 4 billion to Plaintiff A, respectively.

E. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff Foundation donated KRW 4 billion, out of the sale price, to the Plaintiff A; (b) on March 31, 2014, on the premise that the Plaintiff Foundation received a gift from the Plaintiff A to the Plaintiff Foundation and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the GG; (c) transferred the said real estate and senior trees in the form of KRW 7 billion, the Plaintiff Foundation donated the said real estate and senior trees to the next H; and (d) imposed and notified KRW 2,156,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff EA; and (e) on March 31, 2014, the Defendant issued a joint and several tax obligor and notice to the Plaintiff Foundation (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”).

F. Accordingly, although Plaintiff A filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 28, 2014, it was dismissed on October 1, 2014. The Plaintiff Foundation filed a petition for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 19, 2014 after filing an objection on June 30, 2014, but was dismissed on December 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18 through 21, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Plaintiff did not have donated the instant high title to the Plaintiff Foundation, the said high title was owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s 4 billion won received from the Plaintiff Foundation (hereinafter “instant KRW 4 billion”) was the sales price of the instant high class sold by the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request of the Plaintiff HaH. Furthermore, while GG purchased the instant high-class loan, it was a company that is not entirely related to the Plaintiff Foundation, for the purpose of newly constructing and selling high-class loans, it was the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff Foundation for the purpose of building and selling high-class loans, it was merely the waiver of the real estate business and selling the instant real estate to the Plaintiff Foundation, and there was no trust by the Plaintiff Foundation in the name of the instant real estate. Ultimately, the instant disposition was unlawful, provided that Plaintiff A did not receive a donation from the Plaintiff Foundation of the instant KRW 4 billion.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Organization of issues

As the Defendant’s assertion, in order to deem that the instant KRW 4 billion, which the Plaintiff Company should originally belong to the Plaintiff Foundation, was donated from the Plaintiff Foundation, ① selling the instant high title with the instant high title to the Plaintiff HH, and ② It is recognized that the GG is only a company formally transferred only the instant real estate and high title ownership from the Plaintiff Foundation, and the following two issues will be examined.

2) Whether GG sold the instant high title to H

A) Facts of recognition

(1) The real estate sales contract between the Plaintiff Foundation and GG, prepared by the Plaintiff AA as a gift of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff Foundation on January 6, 1998; the property acquisition report prepared by the Plaintiff Foundation to report to the competent authority on January 20, 1998; and the real estate sales contract between the Plaintiff Foundation and GG, is only the subject of donation and sale; and the content of the instant item is not entirely included.

(2) GG entrusted the general procedure related to the sale of the pertinent real estate, such as the other party to the sale of the instant real estate, to the KG. GG concluded a sales contract on April 17, 2003 with the wife HH of the president KimP of the RR Industry Co., Ltd. and the content of the said sales contract, which was introduced by the KJ (Representative KimK, director KimM) as the real estate consulting company.

1. Indication of real estate;

Location: Seoul 00-Gu 00 Dong 00-0, 00-0 (Building Address)

Area: 1150.4 square meter (347.9 square meter)/total floor area of 708.3 square meter (26 square meter)

2. Details of the contract;

Article 1 (Sales Price)

As above, HH agrees to pay to GG the total purchase price, the down payment, the down payment, and the remainder of the land and buildings indicated above.

Total amount of purchase price: 300 million won (W 3,000,000,000)

Down Payment: 300,000,000 won on April 17, 2003

Any balance: 2,700,000,000 Won shall be paid on 15 May 2003.

(Provided, That if payment is made by April 30, 2003, GG shall immediately complete the registration of ownership transfer).

Article 4 (GG's Liability for Warranty of Subject Matter of Sale)

GG is responsible for the maintenance and management of the target real estate in the present condition after the sales contract to HH until delivery: Provided, That the corporeal movables, such as house fixtures and fixtures, falling under the ownership of GG, are to be taken out by GG.

(1) Accessories contained in the subject matter of sale.

Trees (e.g., Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz.)

Goods (excluding curios)

(3) On April 17, 2003, HH paid KRW 700 million to 00,000,000,000,000 won as the down payment, as three copies of the check (one hundred million won, one copy of KRW 100 million, one copy of KRW 400 million, and one copy of KRW 400 million). On April 29, 2003, HH paid the remainder of KRW 6.3 billion. On April 18, 2003, KRW 30 million out of the down payment and KRW 2.7 billion out of the remainder was deposited into the corporate account of GG on April 29, 2003.

(4) (1) Around November 2006, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that GG sold the pertinent real estate to HG for KRW 7 billion; (b) as a result of the investigation of the source of the real estate acquisition fund to HG, the sales price of the said real estate was written, and notified the head of the regional tax office, the competent tax office of GG, as taxation data. (2) As a result of the investigation of the partial portion of the corporate tax on GG from December 10, 2007 to January 31, 2008, the head of the regional tax office notified the Plaintiff 200 billion won to the head of the regional tax office, which was the competent tax office of GG, for KRW 3 billion; (c) deemed that GG had underreported the amount equivalent to KRW 4 billion of the instant real estate sales price of KRW 300 billion; and (d) the Defendant notified the Plaintiff 200 billion of the imposition of corporate tax on May 29, 2008.

(5) On May 19, 2009, HH: (a) concluded a sales contract to sell the instant real estate in KRW 8 billion with Estecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Estecom”); and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 17, 2009.

(6) On March 18, 2011, to April 26, 2011, the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office reported the acquisition value of the instant real estate to KRW 7 billion, but the actual acquisition value was deemed to have been a cause of 3 billion, and accordingly, notified the 2003 capital gains tax on the HaH. On November 7, 201, Hah filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on November 28, 201. On June 28, 2012, Hah acquired the instant real estate and high trees from GG in a lump sum of KRW 7 billion, and the sale price of the instant real estate was KRW 7 billion on April 25, 2011, and most of the above requests for a trial on the grounds that the amount was excluding approximately KRW 54 billion in the appraised value as of April 25, 2011.

(7) During the pertinent tax assessment process, HH requested an appraisal of the market price on April 25, 201 of the instant item to a certified public appraiser lowest 00 and 00, and each appraisal report prepared by the said certified public appraiser stated as follows: “The status of the management of rare landscape trees is good, and the week of the attention is included and included in the growth.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 16 (including the serial number), witness Cho E’s testimony, part of the pleading, and the purport of the whole pleading

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by adding the respective descriptions and the purport of the arguments in the above facts of recognition as seen above, Eul’s evidence Nos. 9 through 11, 14, and 15 (including the branch numbers), it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff donated all of the real estate of this case including the item of this case to the plaintiff’s Foundation, and the GG sold the above real estate and class Nos. 9 through 11, 14, and 15 (including the branch numbers) to the plaintiff’s Foundation in a lump sum

(1) As long as the instant high-class timber does not have the method of public announcement, such as the method of registration of standing timber or the method of scenic name, the pertinent high-class timber, regardless of the market price, is treated as an independent object in principle as a thing attached to the instant land, regardless of the degree of its market price. Therefore, the effect of the instant high-class land ownership in accordance with the principle of right to water and the principle of real-class ownership or the principle

Inasmuch as the ownership of the instant real estate, including the said land, was not indicated to the effect that the ownership of the instant item is reserved in the transfer of ownership of the instant item even where the relevant documents, such as the donation contract, sales contract, etc., prepared until the transfer from the Plaintiff to the GG via the Plaintiff Foundation, the ownership of the instant item is transferred upon the disposal of the instant real estate regardless of the relation with the Plaintiff’s objective business to the Plaintiff foundation or the permission of the competent authority with respect to the disposal of the said item (i.e., the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff contributed to the instant item to the Plaintiff Foundation, even if even if the Plaintiff’s contribution to the instant item was deemed to have been made by the Plaintiff Foundation, he/she argues to the effect that the said item does not change the substance of the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant item to the Plaintiff Foundation, but there is no room to apply the title trust legal doctrine to the extent that the said item does not have

(2) In light of Article 4 of the Real Estate Sales Contract between GG and HH, “a tree tree (e.g., for the first time: for the first time, for the first time, for the first time, for the first time, for the second time, for the second time, for the second time)” is included in the subject of sale. However, it is evident in the literal sense that the part between B and H is obviously taking the second time in the instant land as the case of a tree tree, not for the first time, for the first time, for the first time, for the second time, for the first time, not for the first time, for the second time, for the second time, for the second time, for the second time, not for the second time, for the second time, for the second time.

(3) Considering that the appraisal price as of April 25, 201 of the instant item, which had overall management status, was about KRW 54 billion, with a significant attention as of April 25, 201, the Plaintiffs’ assertion does not reach KRW 4 billion. If the instant item, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, is at least KRW 4 billion and KRW 3 billion, it cannot reasonably explain the reasons for not preparing a sales contract on the instant item, which is higher than the instant item, between the Plaintiff AA and HH (in the sale between individuals on the current cultural property or class (e.g., natural monuments, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the act of not preparing a contract was a kind of practice, and that HH was a kind of practice to not prepare a sales contract between the individuals on the current cultural property or class (e.g., natural monument). In light of social norms, it is difficult to view that HH had an economic value of KRW 8 billion other than the instant item, and thus, it is difficult to view that the said item was an independent witness’s market value at least KRW 25 billion.

(4) On April 6, 2009, Plaintiff Lee Dong-A did not voluntarily report and pay the above tax amount until he was notified of the payment of global income tax of KRW 486,402,960 for the year 2003 from Defendant on August 6, 2009, asserting that he was not GG but she.

(5) Around November 27, 2006 and July 1, 2011, JJ’s director Kimmmmm, a broker of the instant real estate, purchased the instant real estate at KRW 7 billion, and around November 28, 2006, and May 20, 201, SH’s employee Roh Industrial Co., Ltd, a replacement of the instant real estate, around November 28, 2006 and around May 20, 201. Around November 28, 2006, SH, its husband and the president Kim PP of R Industry Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Plaintiff’s husband, around January 200 and March 6, 2008, purchased the instant high-tech land at KRW 7 billion, without calculating separate amount of the purchase price for the instant real estate; ② the Plaintiff’s submission of confirmation document to reduce the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax amount to KRW 300 billion, and the Plaintiff’s submission of the remainder of the agreement.

In fact, in light of the fact that with respect to the remainder of KRW 3.6 billion other than the purchase price of KRW 3 billion as stated in the transport contract written in GG, HH appears to have conducted a notarized promissory note as of April 30, 2003 on the date of payment of the remainder of KRW 4.6 billion, it is difficult to believe that the above content of each of the above certificates was reliable, and that some of the testimony of the witness E is contrary thereto.

3) Whether the instant real estate title trust to GG of the Plaintiff Foundation was held

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On November 5, 2002, the Plaintiff Foundation entered into a sales contract to sell the instant real estate to GG for KRW 2.7 billion, and the remainder payment date of KRW 1.2 billion under the said sales contract is a blank.

(2) The Plaintiff Foundation received KRW 1 billion down payment from GG on November 5, 2002, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 7, 2002 thereafter, and received KRW 500 million in the intermediate payment on November 21, 2002, KRW 500 million in the intermediate payment on June 24, 2003, KRW 50 million in the intermediate payment on July 10, 2003, and KRW 70 million in the remainder on July 10, 2003.

(3) GG had registered its business on November 5, 2002, immediately before the date of acquisition of the instant real estate ( November 7, 2002) and had no employee under its control at the time.

(4) The sales revenue of GG in 2002 was KRW 0,00,000,00 for the current year’s net profit and loss, and KRW 00,000 for the business year’s sales revenue and loss, and KRW 00,000 for the current year’s net profit and loss were KRW -00,000 for the current year’s net profit and loss.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 34, 35, Eul evidence Nos. 19, 20 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by adding up the respective descriptions and arguments in the above facts of recognition Nos. 10 and 11-2 and 14, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff Foundation registered the instant real estate in title with GG only in the form of a sales contract on the instant real estate between the Plaintiff Foundation and GG, and that the Plaintiff Foundation registered the instant real estate in title with GG.

(1) At the time of transfer of the ownership of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff Foundation, GG was unable to engage in normal business activities due to the transfer of the ownership of the instant real estate, and only before the transfer of the said real estate was completed, it appears that the Plaintiff had no economic ability to prepare funds for purchase of the said real estate.

(2) The remainder payment date under the sales contract between the Plaintiff Foundation and GG was a disturbance. In fact, GG paid the remainder of KRW 1.2 billion out of the purchase price of the instant real estate after April 2003.

(3) The Plaintiff Foundation completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant real estate to GG immediately within this framework, even if the Plaintiff Foundation received the down payment of KRW 1 billion from GG, even though it was uncertain whether the operating income of GG would be paid for the future intermediate payments or remainder due to the decline.

(4) According to KimM, who arranged the instant real estate sale and purchase between GG and HaH, franchiseS acting as an agent for the next HH, and each written confirmation prepared by the husband KimP of the next H, HH appears to have performed a leading role in the said transaction process, such as: (a) although the nominal owner on the registry of the instant real estate was GG but the actual owner was recognized as the Plaintiff foundation; and (b) ChoE was a representative of GG to receive the sales amount from the next H or demand the preparation of the multilateral contract as seen earlier.

(5) If the Plaintiff Foundation actually transferred the ownership of the instant real estate to GG, it seems that there is no reasonable reason to lead GG to sell the said real estate to the next H, at the risk of risk that the KE, which served as the secretary of the Plaintiff AA, was in the future, in a legal dispute in the future.

(6) According to Article 11(3) of the Public Interest Corporation Act and Article 17(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a public interest corporation sells its basic property, it shall obtain permission from the competent authority, and such written application for permission shall also be accompanied by documents stating matters on the disposal of the disposal price. However, the Plaintiff Foundation may have part of the disposal price reverted to Plaintiff A without reporting to the competent authority, even though it did not directly dispose of the instant real property to H, in cases where the Plaintiff Foundation disposes of the instant real property under the name of GG, which is not a

4) Sub-determination

Ultimately, since the plaintiff Lee Jae-A may be deemed to have donated KRW 4 billion to the above foundation of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion that is different from this premise is rejected (However, as the defendant is the person who is the defendant, the global income tax already paid on August 31, 2009 seems to have to have to be refunded to the above plaintiff).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.