The net asset value per share and the appraised value of the stock based thereon are reasonable.

Since the appraised value of the shares is at least zero won or is much lower than the book value, the book value must be the book value unless there is a justifiable reason. Thus, there is no difference between the net asset value per share and the appraised value of the shares based thereon.

Article 60 (Principles of Appraisal) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Guhap7614 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Maximum AA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

March 17, 2015

April 14, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 561,262,530 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a representative director of 000 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "000").

B. On May 20, 200, the Plaintiff acquired 566,366 shares of 000 shares issued with capital increase by evaluating 000 won of 187,467 shares in consideration of the investment in kind in the U.S. on May 20, 2000 by the investment of 000 U.S. (hereinafter “instant regeneration technology”) from 000 shares of 187,467 shares in excess of 00 shares, and held title trust to 00 shares in excess of 187,467 shares.

C. As a result of a survey on 000, the Administrator considered that the Plaintiff acquired shares of 187,467 shares of 000 that the Plaintiff acquired in excess of the initial shares as the gift gains from the fluorial fluor. From among intangible assets of 000, the Administrator assessed the value per share of the core cell recycling technology of this case invested in kind as 000 won and calculated as 13,508 won per book value, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

D. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified KRW 561,262,530 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”).

‘Disposition of this case’

E. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal for adjudication on July 15, 2013, but the Plaintiff dismissed the said appeal on December 31 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

000 only obtained permission for the use of the technology transfer and technical know-how through the technology transfer contract with the Lao, but not purchased the recycling technology of this case, and there was no sales generated by using the recycling technology of this case from the establishment of 000 to the date of capital increase by capital increase after its establishment.

Therefore, in order to calculate the value per share for the instant disposition, the Defendant has to apply Article 64(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and Article 59(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”). The Defendant should have determined the amount of gift tax by taking into account the circumstances that there was no sales through the core cell regeneration technology of this case. Nevertheless, the Defendant purchased the intangible property right of this case, which is the intangible property right of this case, at KRW 3,320,00,000 on the account of the book value, and the instant disposition was unlawful by applying Articles 60(3) and 64(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

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

B. Determination

Article 63 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for the assessment of the value of property on which the inheritance tax is levied, in particular, the assessment of securities, etc., and Article 63 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "any stocks and equity shares not listed on the Korea Securities and Futures Exchange other than those listed in item (b) shall be appraised by the method prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the corporation's own profits and losses, etc." Accordingly, Article 54 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the above stocks and equity shares shall be appraised by the weighted average value of the profits and losses and the net

Article 54 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the net asset value per share under the above paragraph (1) = The net asset value of the relevant corporation ± total issued value ±. Article 55 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the net asset value under the provisions of Article 54 (2) shall be the value obtained by subtracting liabilities from the value appraised by the assets of the relevant corporation as of the base date of appraisal under the provisions of Articles 60 through 66 of the Act, and where the net asset value is not more than zero won, it shall be zero won. In this case, where the assets of the relevant corporation are less than the book value (referring to the value obtained by subtracting the depreciation costs from the acquisition value; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article)." The plaintiff asserts that the disposition subject to appraisal of this case is not the intangible property right purchased, but the other intangible property right, and thus, it shall not apply where there is any justifiable reason less than the book value."

However, the disposition of this case is about the plaintiff's gift profit by 187,467 shares per share 187,467 and it is necessary for the calculation of the gift profit of this case not about the recycling technician of this case, but about shares 000. Even if it is necessary to evaluate the recycling technology of this case under the premise of the evaluation of shares, it is necessary to evaluate the recycling technology of this case itself, regardless of whether it is an evaluation under Article 64 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act or an evaluation under Article 60 (2) of the same Act, as the net asset method under Article 55 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is necessary to assess the market value per share as the net asset value per share. However, the plaintiff's claim should be evaluated based on the aggregate of the annual revenue amount of each year of the three years before the base date of appraisal, since the appraisal by such method is much more than 0 won or less than the book value per share itself, and therefore, the appraisal value of this case is no more than the net asset value per share.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, in conclusion, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.