propriety of the disposition that the amount of the public auction participated by a related party cannot be considered as market price.

Due to the nature of the public auction procedure without any restriction in the general public’s participation in the public auction, the public auction of this case does not constitute a normal transaction (from January 1, 2004, it is limited that a related party does not regard the sale as the market price at the time of purchase).

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree

1. On March 2, 2004, the imposition of KRW 1,477,50,160, and KRW 1,111,624,740, and KRW 1,216,50,100, and KRW 870,128,380, and KRW 1,380, respectively, on March 2, 2004 against Plaintiff ○○○○○, which were made by the head of Sungdong Tax Office on Plaintiff ○○○○, and the imposition of KRW 1,315,076,920 against Plaintiff ○○○ on March 15, 2004 is revoked.

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

As set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 한국자산관리공사는 원고들의 아버지인 ○○○이 1996.1.26 원고들에게 ○○○○ 주식회사 (이하'소외회사'라 한다)의 주식 216,000주를 증여함에 따라 1992.3.2. 원고들이 증여세의 일부로 물납한 소외회사 발행의 비상장주식 54,125주의 매각을 재정경제부로부터 위탁받아 2001.5.18경 1주당 최저매각예정가액을 37,820원으로 정하여 공매를 개시하였다. 그러나 위 공매절차에서 입찰참가자가 없어 총 6회에 걸친 공매가 유찰되자 한국자산관리공사는 최저매각예정가액을 18,910원으로 정하여 7회 공매를 실시하였는데, 주식회사 대유와 원고들의 어머니인 ○○○가 위 공매에 참가하여 그 중 입찰금액이 높은 ○○○가 위 물납주식을 1주당 18,938원(이하'이 사건 공매가액'이라 한다)에 낙찰 받았다, 이에 따라 ○○○는 2001.9.25. 국가와 사이에 이 사건 주식의 양도가액을 1주당 18,938원으로 정하여 주식양수도계약을 체결하였고, 2001.10.24.경 잔금을 납부함으로ㅆ 위 주식을 취득하였다.

B. On December 17, 2001, ○○○○○○, 60.125 weeks, Plaintiff 48,225 weeks, Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○, Plaintiff 51,625 weeks, Plaintiff 39,775 shares, and Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○, 55,725 shares, and 254,725 shares, totaling 55,025 shares (hereinafter “the shares”), were donated to Nonparty ○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiffs calculated the amount of the public sale of this case’s shares at the market price per share, and reported the gift tax to the Defendants.

C. On this issue, the Defendants assessed the value of each share of this case as 65,650 won in accordance with the supplementary method of assessment under Articles 60, 63(1)1 (c), and 54(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), and calculated the gift tax amount of this case by assessing the value of each share of this case as 65,650 won in accordance with the supplementary method of assessment under Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and then the Plaintiffs determined and notified gift tax (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 5, Gap evidence 10,11,12, and 13-1 to 5, Eul evidence 2 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions in this case7 are legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

(i)The plaintiff's assertion

First, Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied shall be based on the current market price, and the market price shall be the value generally recognized as a transaction between many and unspecified persons, and the current market price shall include the amount recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the public sale price. Article 49(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree provides that the public sale price of the pertinent property shall be deemed as the market price of the pertinent shares, unless there are special circumstances.

Second, although the plaintiffs received written questions and replies from the National Tax Service and the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and accordingly, calculated the gift tax by considering the amount of the public sale of this case as the market price of the stocks of this case and reported the gift tax to the defendants, the defendants violated the principle of good faith by making the disposition of this case against

(2) The defendants' assertion

First, the public sale price of this case is merely 50% reduced for the initial public sale price, and cannot be deemed as an objective exchange price formed through general and ordinary transactions. The shares of this case are 14.9% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company and 3.86% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company, and it is 3.18% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company, which is 3.18% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company, because it is 3.18% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company, which is 3.18% of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company. The public sale price of shares paid in kind is determined without considering the general practice that it is accompanied by transfer of management right. The non-party company supplying a newspaper site to a newspaper company and shows continuous management protection by securing exclusive customers in the newspaper company, such as Joseon Korea, from 1996 to 3 times, in light of the market price of the non-party shares in Korea.

Second, the question of whether the plaintiffs can regard the amount of public auction as the market price in the re-examination of the Ministry of Finance and Economy is interpreted as the "matters to be judged based on the circumstances leading to the public auction", and does not contain the contents that the amount of public auction should be considered as the market price. Thus, the disposition of the defendants in this case does not violate the principle of good faith.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) the marketing;

First, we examine whether the sale price of this case can be seen as the market price of the stocks of this case.

Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied shall be calculated based on the market price as of the date of donation. Here, the market price shall be the value generally recognized as a transaction between many and unspecified persons, and the market price shall be recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the public sale price. Article 49(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree, which was enforced at the time of donation of the stocks of this case, provides that in case of donation, if there is a public sale of the relevant property within three months before the base date of appraisal, the public sale price shall be deemed as the market price in calculating the gift price of the stocks of this case, unless there are any special circumstances. As seen earlier, the public sale of the stocks of this case, as seen above, shall be deemed as the market price in calculating the value of the stocks of this case, and thus, the public sale of the stocks of this case shall be deemed as the market price in calculating the value of the stocks of this case.

Furthermore, the above circumstance alleged by the Defendants does not necessarily mean that the public auction in this case does not constitute a normal transaction due to the nature of the public auction procedure where there is no restriction on the participation in the public auction. In addition, the proviso was newly established to the effect that the public auction does not regard the property paid in kind as a "market price" in case where a person with a special relationship with the donor, etc. under Article 49 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which was in force from January 1, 2004, is a "public auction price". However, the above proviso cannot be deemed as a provision that is naturally accepted as a matter of view in the interpretation of Article 49 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Rather, only if a person with a special relationship with the donor, etc. is a public auction, the relevant public auction price shall not be deemed as the market price under Article 60 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax

Therefore, the disposition of this case by the Defendants, who did not recognize the value of the public auction of this case as the market price of the stocks of this case and assessed its value by supplementary assessment method, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting them.