Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap39936, 12 July 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 2008Da2626 ( December 15, 2009)

Since it falls under the largest shareholder of the first invested corporation, it is subject to evaluation of evidence.

Even if the increase or decrease disposition is made, it is subject to the increase or decrease assessment because it constitutes the largest shareholder of the primary invested corporation, including shares in the issuing corporation and persons with a special relationship, in evaluating the net assets of the stock issuer subject to appraisal.

2012Nu24544 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

KimAA 2 others

Head of the Yongsan Tax Office and one other

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap39936 decided July 12, 2012

March 6, 2013

March 27, 2013

1. The part of the action that is dismissed below among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

A. On February 15, 201, the part of the Plaintiff KimA’s lawsuit and the part of the Defendant Yongsan Tax Office’s claim seeking revocation of the gift tax amount exceeding KRW 000 (00,000,000,000,000,000, which was filed by the Plaintiff Kim Yong-A on February 15, 201 (the portion exceeding the adjusted 00,000,000,000,000 won).

B. On February 15, 201, the part of the Plaintiff KimA’s lawsuit, and the part of the Defendant Yongsan Tax Office’s claim seeking revocation of the gift tax amount exceeding KRW 000 (00) out of KRW 00,00,000 (the portion exceeding KRW 00,00, as amended on February 15, 201).

C. On April 1, 2011, the part of the claim seeking revocation of the portion exceeding KRW 000 (00) out of the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 against Plaintiff KimA, which was filed by the director of the tax office for Defendant Kim Yong-A and the claim seeking revocation of KRW 000 (the portion exceeding the adjusted 000 won on April 1, 201) shall be dismissed.

D. On February 7, 2011, the part of the claim seeking cancellation of KRW 000,000, which exceeds KRW 000,000 ( KRW 000,000, which was filed by the director of the tax office on the part of Plaintiff KimD’s lawsuit, and the part of the claim seeking cancellation of KRW 00,00 (the portion exceeding KRW 00,00,000, increased since February 7, 201).

E. On February 7, 2011, the part of the claim seeking cancellation of KRW 000 (00) exceeding KRW 00,000 among the part of the gift tax imposition (GulCC donation amount) made by Plaintiff KimD against Plaintiff KimD (the part exceeding KRW 000, which was corrected on February 7, 2011) is dismissed.

2. The remainder of the appeal filed by the plaintiff KimA and KimD and the appeal filed by the plaintiff Kim E shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The portion exceeding KRW 00, among the imposition of KRW 00,000, and the portion exceeding KRW 00,000, among the imposition of KRW 00,000, which was made on February 15, 201 by the head of Yongsan Tax Office, and on the imposition of KRW 00,000, and the portion exceeding KRW 00,000, among the imposition of KRW 00,000, which was made on Plaintiff KimA on April 1, 201, and the portion exceeding KRW 00,00,000, among the imposition of KRW 00,00,00, which was made on Plaintiff KimE on April 11, 201. The portion of the imposition of KRW 0,00,00,00, which exceeds KRW 0,000, and the portion of the imposition of KRW 00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

1. Quotation of the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: (a) the reasons for the judgment of the first instance are the same as those for the judgment; (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (c) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; (b) each part of the 02 pages are referred to in the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18108, Sep. 29, 2003); (c) the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19899, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) shall be referred to as “the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act No. 2010, 910, 111, 2003; and (d) the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2081, Sep. 29, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree”).

"The Disposition in this case is combined with the First and Second Dispositions" that take 04th 11st th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th.

(A) The part seeking revocation of KRW 000, which falls under the above part of the plaintiff Kim E-E lawsuit is lawful, and as seen thereafter, the instant provision does not apply to the shares of this case, and this part of the plaintiff Kim E-E's claim cannot be accepted).

From the 13th to the 9th 7th 7th day of the 08th 13th , the part concerning the legitimacy of the instant action b. 3) is as follows:

[3] Whether the part seeking revocation in excess of the increased portion among the claims by Plaintiff KimA and the remaining claims by Plaintiff KimD is legitimate

Article 22-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "an increase in the amount of tax originally determined under tax-related Acts shall not affect the rights and obligations under this Act or other tax-related Acts with respect to the amount of tax initially determined, and even if a correction disposition is made, any objection to the amount of tax determined by the original return or decision made after the lapse of the objection period. On the other hand, the subject matter of lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition disposition is specified solely as the objective existence of the amount of tax determined by the tax-related authority or the purport of the claim, and thus, it is merely an attack and defense as alleged legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17390, May 14, 2009). As seen earlier, the Defendant’s tax office’s request for correction and correction of the portion of tax-related Acts that constitutes the Plaintiff’s tax-related Acts, including KRW 000,000, and KRW 00,000, and KRW 20,007,00.

2. The plaintiff's additional assertion and the judgment on the additional assertion

The Plaintiffs asserts that even if the instant provision refers to the case where the first and second investing corporations constitute the largest share and that the first and second investing corporations are assessing the shares held by the second investing corporation, and that the AA shares held by H should not be assessed as a premium. However, as seen earlier, the instant provision does not apply to assessing the shares held by the corporation that issued the shares being valued, but does not vary with HH as it does not correspond to the assessment of the shares held by the corporation that issued the shares being valued, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this premise.

3. Conclusion

In the judgment of the first instance, the part corresponding to the above dismissed part among the lawsuits of the plaintiff KimA and the remaining lawsuits of the plaintiff KimD shall be revoked, and the corresponding part shall be dismissed. The remaining appeals filed by the plaintiff KimA, and KimD and the appeals filed by the plaintiff KimE shall be dismissed.