(2) The term of filing a lawsuit has expired and is illegal;

It is confirmed that a subsequent notice following the review decision by the Tax Tribunal has been received, and it is apparent that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was filed after the lapse of 90 days prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act from that time. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is not illegal because the period for filing the lawsuit in this case has expired.

2013Guhap2327 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

1. GaB 2. GaB 3. GaCC

1.The director of the regional tax office; 2. The director of the regional tax office;

September 27, 2013

November 12, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 1, 2011, the director of the regional tax office of Korea revoked the imposition of the gift tax on the gift of the Plaintiff KimA on October 10, 2007 by the director of the regional tax office of Korea (including additional OOOOO) on June 8, 201, by the director of the regional tax office of Korea on the Plaintiff KimB on the Plaintiff KimB on June 8, 2011, and by the director of the regional tax office of distribution of the Defendant on March 1, 201, the imposition of the additional tax on the gift of the Plaintiff KimB on the Plaintiff on the part of the director of the regional tax office of Korea on March 1, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

“DDD Co., Ltd., which is an Association-registered corporation, (hereinafter “DD”) shall hold a board of directors on August 17, 2007 and publicly announce the resolution to pay 16,000,000 shares of registered ordinary shares to the third party in the manner of allocating them to the OOO members per share. On September 14, 2007, the board of directors shall hold a board of directors and passed a resolution to change the contents and schedule of the new shares, and then issued a capital increase to the company on October 10, 207.” (B) The Plaintiffs paid 44,444 shares, and 22,222 shares, and 8,891 shares, respectively.

C. On December 9, 2010, the Board of Audit and Inspection deemed that D.D. 32 persons, including the plaintiffs, were to receive new shares at low price and to impose gift tax on them by deeming the difference between the acquisition price of new shares and the appraised value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as the donation of profits to the persons who received new shares at low prices. The remaining director of the tax office of 1,000 won of the above shares calculated pursuant to Article 39 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax and Gift Tax and Gift Tax and 100 won of the above shares, and the head of the tax office of 2,000 won of the 1,000 won of the 2,000 won of the 1,000 won of the 2,000 won of the 1,0100 won of the 2,000 won of the 100

F. Accordingly, the director of the Namcheon District Tax Office conducted a reinvestigation pursuant to the above decision, and subsequently notified the Plaintiffs to Plaintiff KimA on March 26, 2012, and to the rest of the Plaintiffs on April 4, 2012. Each of the above notification was received on March 30, 2012 from Plaintiff Kim Yong-A, and the rest of the Plaintiffs on April 9, 2012.

G. On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff KimA, who is dissatisfied with the foregoing notification, filed a second appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 4, 2012, but each of the above claims was dismissed on October 18, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 15, Eul evidence 1 through 7 (including evidence with serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

(a) A master of the parties;

In light of the fact that "the defendants shall file an administrative litigation within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the subsequent disposition by the Tax Tribunal," "the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case with the intention of Doing it, and thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be deemed unlawful," "the plaintiffs shall dismiss the case without rejection of the plaintiffs' request for a judgment by the Tax Tribunal, and the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514 Decided June 25, 2010 may file a request for a review or a request for a trial after subsequent disposition in accordance with the re-audit decision," the taxpayers may file a request for a judgment again if any subsequent disposition is made in accordance with the re-audit decision, and the period of filing the lawsuit of administrative litigation should be counted from the date of notification of the decision of the re-audit decision by the Tax Tribunal."

The Supreme Court Decision 200Du12514 delivered on June 25, 2010 ruled that a review of the matters pointed out in the decision at issue regarding the whole or part of a single taxation unit constitutes a modified decision in which the agency should take part of the subsequent disposition of the agency, such as correcting the tax base and tax amount, or maintaining the initial disposition according to the results of the review of the said decision. Such a review of the matters pointed out in the decision at issue constitutes a modified decision where the agency intended to take part of the decision on the objection, request for review, or adjudgment (hereinafter referred to as the "request for review, etc."). It is reasonable to deem that the period of objection following the review should be counted from the date of receipt of the subsequent disposition (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514 delivered on June 25, 2010). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' previous review of the matters in this case constitutes an offering of securities as stipulated in the Securities and Exchange Act, and thus, it cannot be seen that the subsequent review of the Supreme Court decision at issue is justifiable.

(2) The court below held that each disposition of this case, which is the initial disposition of this case, is subject to appeal against each disposition of this case. However, even if the plaintiffs are assumed to have filed the administrative litigation of this case through a request for a judgment by the Tax Tribunal, the lawsuit of this case, which is based on this premise, cannot be allowed for the following reasons. In this case, the notification of the result of each disposition of this case is merely based on the premise that each disposition of this case is maintained, and it cannot be viewed as an exercise of public power or an administrative action equivalent thereto which causes a new change in the rights and duties of the plaintiffs, and it cannot be viewed as a disposition subject to administrative appeal or appeal.

Therefore, the defendants' defense prior to the merits is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are all unlawful, it is decided to dismiss them as per Disposition.