There is no justifiable reason for not being able to cause any reason for neglecting the duty to report and pay.

There is no specific assertion or proof that there is no justifiable reason for neglecting the obligation to report and pay principal tax.

Additional tax under Article 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 47-2 of the Additional Tax on Non-Filing

2014Guhap20030 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

Gangwon A

00. Head of tax office

December 9, 2014

December 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 4, 2013, the Defendant’s imposition of penalty tax for breach of duty on the Plaintiff is revoked. The imposition of penalty tax for breach of duty on the Plaintiff is also revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the gift tax base to the effect that 104,415 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) of the CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCC”) were donated by ParkB, the spouse of the company (hereinafter “CCC”) were donated. ParkB is the wife of EE, the representative director of the non-party company.

B. On July 21, 2010, the market price of the instant shares was increased since the non-party company was listed on the KOSDAQ market. The head of the tax office deemed that the Plaintiff received a donation from ParkB to "profit from the listing, etc. of the shares or equity shares" under Article 41-3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201); and on July 8, 2011, the head of the tax office corrected and notified the OOO (including additional tax OOO) of gift tax to the Plaintiff.

C. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the imposition of gift tax, the said court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Plaintiff received a title trust without any tax avoidance purpose from ParkBB” on February 15, 2013, and rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff based on the Plaintiff’s determination that the said imposition of gift tax was lawful, which deemed that the Plaintiff received a donation of the instant shares from ParkB. While dissatisfied with this determination, the Plaintiff was dismissed on February 7, 2014 from the appellate court (200 high court) (2013Nu000), which was the appellate court, and the Supreme Court (2014Du000) which was the appellate court (200) to dismiss the appeal on June 26, 2014, which was the final appeal.

D. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court (2010du000) rendered a judgment on October 18, 2012 that “it was unlawful to impose penalty taxes by stating only the aggregate of the types, amounts, grounds for calculation, etc. of penalty taxes without specifying the type, amount, etc. of penalty taxes at all,” and thus, the head of the tax office ex officio cancelled the portion of penalty taxes among the previous imposition of gift taxes. On March 4, 2013, the Defendant, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the address where the Plaintiff transferred, issued a disposition imposing general non-reported penalty tax OOO and additional tax OOOO for insincerey payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The imposition of the principal gift tax imposed on the Plaintiff by deeming that the instant shares were held in title trust without a tax avoidance purpose by ParkB is unlawful. As long as the imposition of principal tax is unlawful, the imposition of additional tax is unlawful, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the head of 00 district court seeking revocation of the imposition of gift tax as of July 8, 201 against the head of 00 district court, and dealt with the legality of the said imposition of principal tax. However, the appellate court rendered a final judgment following the final appeal that the said imposition of principal tax is lawful. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the illegality of the imposition of principal tax cannot be accepted.

In this case, there is no specific assertion and proof that the plaintiff neglected to report the principal tax and pay the principal tax, and there is no justifiable reason to prove that the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.