Board of Audit and Inspection ( Board of Audit and Inspection, 201. 04. 14)

The market price calculation standard for issuing new shares is deemed the transfer date.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was indicted for violating the Securities and Exchange Act by issuing a false purchase order for the purpose of inducing the sale and purchase of shares using a borrowed account and thus, the title trust constitutes a title trust and the standard for calculating the market price of capital increase for new stocks is deemed the transfer date

2011Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, etc.

Category XX 5 others

Head of the Suwon Tax Office and three others

June 15, 2012

August 17, 2012

1. A. The Head of the Suwon Tax Office’s Office made on May 3, 2010 to Plaintiff Park Young-A:

(i)the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 (including penalty tax) for the year 2000;

2)the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 (including penalty tax) for the year 2000;

3) The portion exceeding KRW 000 out of the additional tax of KRW 000,000, imposed on gift tax for the year 201;

4) B. The Head of the Suwon Tax Office’s tax office’s notice on May 3, 2010 to Plaintiff B:

1) The portion exceeding KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000), among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2000;

2) the portion exceeding KRW 000 out of KRW 000,000, of the penalty tax imposition disposition on gift tax for the year 201;

C. The part of the imposition disposition of the gift tax amount of KRW 000 (including additional tax) on May 11, 2010 by the head of Busan District Tax Office (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff ChoCC in 2000, which exceeds KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000);

D. The Director of the Eastern Tax Office limited on May 11, 2010 to Plaintiff HaD:

(i)the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 (including penalty tax) for the year 2000;

2)the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 (including penalty tax) for the year 2000;

3) Each part of the imposition disposition of gift tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2001 exceeds KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000) shall be revoked.

2. The remaining claims of Plaintiffs ParkA, leB, ChoCC, and HaD and the claims of Plaintiffs E-E and KimF are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between Plaintiff E and the Head of Suwon Tax Office is ten minutes, and the remainder is ten minutes, and the part arising between Plaintiff Park Young-A and the Head of Suwon Tax Office is ten minutes, and the remainder is ten minutes, and the part arising between Plaintiff Park Young-B and the Head of Suwon Tax Office of the above Plaintiff, and the remainder is three minutes, and the part arising between Plaintiff Cho Young-B and the Head of Suwon Tax Office of the above Plaintiff, and the remainder is three minutes, and the remainder is ten minutes, and the remainder is ten minutes, and the part arising between Plaintiff Cho Young-B and the Head of Suwon-si Tax Office of the above Plaintiff.

Each disposition of imposition on the Defendants listed in the separate sheet (Provided, That the disposition of imposition on global income tax on May 3, 2010 by the Head of Suwon Tax Office to Plaintiff E on May 3, 2010 shall be revoked) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. XX (hereinafter referred to as " XX") is a corporation registered in the KOSDAQ on June 1, 1970 after its incorporation on June 1, 1970 for the purpose of manufacturing feed and manufacturing feed, and Plaintiff YE is a representative director of the XX percent.

B. After investigating the details of changes in the shares of the XX system, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) purchased shares from October 17, 2000 to December 19, 2001 from Plaintiff LA; (b) purchased shares from Plaintiff LA or received shares from Plaintiff LA; (c) purchased shares from Plaintiff LA to 947,540 shares; (d) purchased shares from October 13, 200 to March 29, 200; (e) purchased shares from Plaintiff LAB’s name or received shares from 560,108 shares with subscription; (c) purchased shares from Plaintiff LAB’s title trust; (d) purchased shares from 15,696 shares under Plaintiff LA’s name from October 17, 200 to 31, 204; and (e) purchased shares from Plaintiff LA; and (e) purchased shares from 360,104,000 shares under the name of Plaintiff LA; or (e) purchased shares from 14, 2, 501.4.

C. Accordingly, the Defendants imposed capital gains tax and comprehensive income tax on Plaintiff HE, Plaintiff LAA, leB, leB, DaD, HaDD, and KimF, respectively, as shown in the separate disposition list.

D. On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiffs appealed and filed a request for review to the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the Board of Audit and Inspection rendered a decision on April 14, 201 that “With respect to global income tax amount of KRW 000,00,000, for which the director of the competent tax office paid to the Plaintiff Class E, the amount of tax should be corrected by excluding the dividend and interest income paid to the Plaintiff not Class EE among the above income, and the remainder of the request for review is dismissed.”

E. According to the decision of the said Board of Audit and Inspection, the head of the competent tax office revoked the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 for 200,000 on the Plaintiff’s Category E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 24, Gap evidence 2-1 through 6, Eul evidence 1-1 to 24, Eul evidence 2-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The non-existence of title trust and tax avoidance purpose

The share acquisition funds in the name of the Plaintiff ParkA, MaB, and DoD are funds of thisG, and there is no room to establish a trust under the name of the Plaintiff ChoCC, and KimF, as the funds of the said Plaintiffs. Even if the acquisition funds are the Plaintiff ChoE, given that there was no specific agreement between the Plaintiff Cho E and the remaining Plaintiffs on the type and volume of shares, the title trust is not established. Furthermore, even if the title trust is recognized, the principal purpose of the title trust of this case is not the avoidance of tax, but the mere interruption of the minor tax burden incidental thereto, and there is no purpose of tax avoidance.

2) Claim for return of donated property and double imposition

Since Plaintiff ParkA, leB, and DoD sold the shares received in the name of the said Plaintiffs within three months due to capital increase issued on October 24, 2000, it shall be deemed that no donation was made from the beginning pursuant to Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Moreover, since the shares acquired again with the funds that sold the shares trusted in the name of the said Plaintiffs are substitute for the shares initially trusted, it is unlawful to impose a constructive gift tax thereon again.

3) Unlawful assertion for calculation of gift value

It is unlawful for the Defendants to calculate the gift value based on the market price formed by the stock price manipulation. Moreover, even if the acquisition of the instant shares by Plaintiffs ParkA, leB, HaDD, and CC is deemed as a donation, the base date of the stock issued with capital increase on October 24, 2000 shall be deemed as December 31, 200, a transfer date, and the base date of the stock issued with capital increase on December 31, 200. As such, the gift value should be calculated based on the appraised value per share at the time of the transfer date. The Defendants’ imposition disposition of this case, which was made on December 8, 200, by setting the base date as the base date on December 8, 200, based on the appraised value per share at that time, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 6-1 through 7, evidence Nos. 7-1 through 6, evidence Nos. 19, 20, 21, evidence Nos. 23-1, 2, 3, Eul 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, evidence Nos. 17-1 through 6, evidence Nos. 19-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings as follows:

such office may be recognized.

(i) price manipulation as a result of the primary stock price manipulation;

Plaintiff HH and KimJ through GJ upon receipt of a request from this GG to dispose of its shares, a major shareholder of XX 232,865 shares, the Plaintiff’s E sold the shares to approximately KRW 000 and deposited the said shares in the securities account of thisG after operating the stock price through a multiple borrowed account from April 6, 200 to September 5, 200.

(ii) price manipulation as a result of the secondary stock price manipulation;

A) On October 200, Plaintiff LAE asked Plaintiff LA, leB, CCC, and HadD to open a borrowed account. Accordingly, Plaintiff LA has requested Plaintiff LA to open a borrowed account (Account Number 023-01-20000), Plaintiff LAB, and Plaintiff LB, respectively, opened an account for securities (Account Number 023-00-00-000) and a YB account (Account Number 275,000-00-5000), Plaintiff LA opened an account for securities (Account Number 05,000-000), and Plaintiff LAC opened an account for securities (Account Number 05-000-000) and a YB account for securities (Account Number 005-00-000). Plaintiff LA opened an account number of securities (Account Number 0000-00-000).

B) On September 200, Plaintiff NE withdrawn approximately KRW 8.7 billion from the securities account of thisG, and deposited it into its own personal account or XX-minutes account through complex fund laundering process, but deposited it into the securities account under the name of the largest KK, RedL, Plaintiff Park Ga, leB, and HaDD and operated the market price by purchasing and selling shares in its name.

C) The director of the competent tax office imposed a gift tax amount of KRW 00 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the total amount of 35,409 shares, which were transferred on October 24, 200 (i.e., 275,409 shares + 80,000 shares). (ii) on the shares issued on October 24, 2000 with new shares issued on October 24, 200, the deemed donation amount of KRW 106,62 shares as of December 8, 200, the deemed donation amount of KRW 00 shall be imposed on the shares issued on December 31, 200, 3) on the gift amount of KRW 475,809; and (iii) on the remaining shares acquired on December 31, 200, the transfer date of ownership, the gift tax was imposed on KRW 00 on the shares acquired on the remaining shares acquired on the basis of capital increase; and (iv) on the same year from December 1301, 2001.

D) The head of the Suwon Tax Office imposed gift tax amount of KRW 00 on the total amount of 241,463 shares transferred on October 24, 2000 (=19,178 shares + 100,00 shares + 22.285 shares). ② on October 24, 2000, the gift tax amount of KRW 00 is imposed on the shares issued on the 72,438 shares issued with capital increase on October 24, 200; ② on the 72,438 shares issued with capital increase on the 72,438 shares issued with capital increase on December 8, 200, gift tax was imposed on KRW 00 on the 246,207 shares acquired on December 201.

E) The head of the tax office of the Eastern Tax Office imposed gift tax on the total of 152,022 shares listed on October 24, 200 (i.e., 50,162 shares + 100 + 100 shares + 101,660 shares). (ii) On October 24, 200, the basic date for deemed donation of shares issued with capital increase on December 8, 200, the basic date for deemed donation of 45,606 shares issued with capital increase on December 8, 200, the gift tax was imposed on KRW 00 on the shares issued with capital increase as of December 31, 200, and KRW 125,000 after purchase and sale of shares issued with capital increase as of December 31, 200; and (iii) on the shares acquired with capital increase as of December 31, 200, the transfer date imposing gift tax was imposed on KRW 2601,200.

F) On October 24, 200, the XX portion allocated 15,696 new shares under the name of Plaintiff MediationCC, which was based on capital increase. The above amount was paid on December 8 of the same year. The head of the Defendant Busan Busan District Tax Office imposed KRW 000,000, which is the date of payment of capital increase.

G) From April 13, 2004 to November 12, 2004, a total of 167,782 share price was purchased from the securities account in the name of KimF, and 30,100 share price was sold, and on December 31, 2004, the transfer date was 137,682 share price was 137,682 share price in the said securities account. The head of Andong Tax Office imposed 000 won gift tax on it.

3) Criminal punishment for stock price manipulation

Plaintiff Category E purchased shares from May 2, 200 to August 25, 200 of the same year through various borrowed accounts such as SouthM, thereby artificially maneuvering the market price of shares (the first price manipulation), and using 20 borrowed accounts such as Plaintiff Park Ga, HaDD, and leB to make a will to purchase and sell the shares of the instant company from October 12, 200 to November 21 of the same year, the judgment became final and conclusive on October 23, 200, which became final and conclusive on October 23, 200, by ordering the purchase and sale of shares of the instant company (the second price manipulation) with the aim of buying and selling shares of the instant company from May 2, 200 to August 21 of the same year, 200.

(iv)criminal punishment for breach of change reporting obligation and stock change reporting obligation;

A) Plaintiff EE holds 12,512,254 shares of the instant company (50.54% of the shares of the instant company) through a 12 borrowed account, including the shares of a person with special interest, until August 31, 2004, Plaintiff EE did not report to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Exchange during the period from September 1, 2004 to June 3, 2005. ② Plaintiff EE did not hold a large amount of duty to file a report; ② Plaintiff EE did not hold 8,52,271 shares of the instant company from November 12, 204 through a 12 borrowed account in the name of Plaintiff Kim FF (41.12%), but it did not file a summary order from February 1, 2004 to 208, on the ground that it did not file a fine with the Securities Futures Commission and Futures Commission.

B) On the other hand, among the 12 borrowed accounts listed in the above criminal facts, △△ Securities Account (Account Number 012-00-20000) in the name of KimF (Account Number 012-00-20000) and the O-investment securities account (Account Number 023-00-20000) in the name of Plaintiff ParkB, and YB account (Account Number 275000-000) in the name of Plaintiff leB, and YY Securities Account (Account Number 035-20-50000), YB Securities Account (Account Number 035-20-50000), and YD Securities Account (Account Number 05-02-0000) in the name of Plaintiff HaD.

(v) Transfer of holders;

The company of this case closed the register of shareholders on October 24, 200, December 31, 2000, and December 31, 2001, and changed the title thereto. The shares of the above plaintiffs were changed accordingly.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the absence of the purpose of title trust and tax avoidance

A) Determination on whether a title trust is held

(1) First of all, the Plaintiff’s actual owner of the shares issued under the name of EB, CEB, and 0G purchase price, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., the Plaintiff’s e., (i) purchased shares issued to the Plaintiff’s 20 G account for the purpose of inducing the Plaintiff to purchase and sell the shares by means of 20 borrowed accounts, such as Ha, HaD, and HaB; (ii) the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale of the shares issued under the name of 0G 0, which appears to have been subject to a final judgment of conviction for the Plaintiff’s violation of the Securities and Exchange Act; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s 0G purchase and sale of the shares issued to the Plaintiff’s 0G purchase and sale of the shares by means of 0G purchase and sale of the shares; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s 234,000 shares issued under the name of 0G 20,000 won after the purchase and sale of the shares.

(2) Next, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: ① Plaintiff EE was indicted on November 12, 2004 for the actual owner of the shares in the name of Plaintiff ChoCC and KimF, and (i) was holding 8,552,271 shares of the instant company through a 12 borrowed account including the accounts in the name of Plaintiff KimF and ChoCC (41.12% of the shares in the instant company); (ii) was in violation of the Securities Commission and the Exchange’s duty to report the change of shares during the period from February 7, 2005 to February 11, 200, Plaintiff EE did not receive a summary order of KRW 200 on February 21, 2008; and (iii) was in violation of the Securities Commission’s duty to notify the Plaintiff of the change of shares in the name of the Securities Exchange and the Plaintiff’s actual owner of the shares; and (iv) was in violation of the Securities Exchange’s duty to notify the Plaintiff of the actual owner of the shares in question.

(3) Furthermore, Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) provides that “where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from any other property (excluding land and buildings; hereinafter in this Article the same shall apply), the value of the relevant property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner on the date when the actual owner and the nominal owner are registered as the nominal owner, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.” The above provision applies to the property requiring a transfer or exercise of the right, where the actual owner and the nominal owner make a registration, etc. in the future of the nominal owner by unilaterally using the nominal owner’s name regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, and in this case, the tax authority establishes only the difference between the actual owner and the nominal owner, and if the actual owner proves that the use of the title was made by a unilateral act of the actual owner by the unilateral owner.

The shares of this case are owned by Plaintiff LA, leB, HaD, HaDD, DaD, DaCC, and KimF. As seen earlier, Plaintiff LA, HaB, HaDDD, HaCC, and KimF are deemed to have donated the shares of this case from Plaintiff LAE. As alleged by the Plaintiffs, the provision on deemed donation is not applicable solely on the ground that there was no specific agreement on the type, quantity, etc. of title trust shares as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and there is no evidence to support that Plaintiff LAE unilaterally opened the name of shareholders in the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the above nominal owner. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

B) Judgment on the non-existence of tax avoidance purpose

(1) First, the plaintiffs alleged that the funds for acquiring shares in the names of plaintiffs ParkA, MaB, and HaD are Lee GG, and that the funds for acquiring shares in the names of plaintiffs ChoCC and KimF were acquired by the above plaintiffs, so it cannot be said that they had a purpose of tax avoidance. However, since the above funds for acquiring shares are owned by the plaintiffs Cho EE as seen earlier, the above funds for acquiring shares are owned by the plaintiffs Cho EE, the plaintiffs' assertion on the opposite premise is without merit.

(2) Next, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that there was no tax avoidance purpose, not the main purpose of the instant title trust, but the reduced amount of the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax. As such, the legislative purport of Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to effectively prevent the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system and to realize the tax justice. Thus, if it is recognized that the title trust was conducted for any reason other than the tax avoidance purpose, and that there was only a small amount of tax reduction incidental to the said title trust, it cannot be concluded that there was a tax avoidance purpose. However, in light of the above legislative purport, it cannot be deemed that the reduced amount of capital gains tax for the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax imposed on the Plaintiff’s 0-B shares under the name of 0-B-B-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-D-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-S.

2) Determination as to the assertion on the return of donated property and duplicate imposition

(4) The Plaintiffs asserted that since the above Plaintiffs’ shares were sold within 3 months under the name of the title trustee with capital increase issued on October 24, 200, the sale price for the shares should be deemed as having never been donated under Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. As such, the Plaintiffs’ new shares were purchased using the securities account in which the sale price for the shares transferred under title was deposited from E, and the purport of Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is as follows. However, if the Plaintiffs were to return the shares received under the name of the title trustee by deeming that the shares were not subject to the title trustee’s return of the shares under the title trustee’s title trust agreement, it is difficult to view that the title trustee’s first sale price for the shares transferred under the name of the title trustee was not subject to the return of the shares under the title trustee’s title trust under the title of the title trustee’s name, and thus, if the title trustee’s first sale price for the shares transferred under the name of the title truster’s.

B) Determination on the assertion of duplicate imposition

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the shares are merely a substitute for the shares that were initially title trust if they are again acquired with the price for sale of the shares held in title trust as above. However, the following circumstances are as follows: ① Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is a provision established to effectively prevent tax avoidance by using the title trust system and realize tax justice; ② even if the shares that were newly purchased with the shares initially held in title trust and the price for sale of the above shares are all shares, the above shares cannot be deemed a uniform shares. ③ Since the property that is deemed to have been donated by the title trust shares is a title trust shares that are not the purchase price for the shares held in title trust, even if the title trust shares were again purchased with the funds for sale of the said shares in title trust, the purchase shares cannot be deemed to be merely a substitute for the shares that were initially held in title trust, ④ Even if the shares were again purchased with the funds for sale of the first title trust, the plaintiffs' first title trust shares cannot be deemed to have been imposed with excessive shares under Article 14(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

3) Determination as to the illegality of calculation of gift value

A) First, as to the assertion that the gift price was calculated on the basis of the market price formed at an abnormal level, the following circumstances are that the market price of the stock cannot be necessarily increased due to the price manipulation, i.e., (i) the price of the stock; (ii) although there was a price manipulation, since the stock of this case was freely traded among many and unspecified persons as listed stocks, the market price at that time may be deemed an objective exchange price; and (iii) the Plaintiffs could have purchased and sold the stock of this case according to the market price formed at the time of stock market; and (iv) even if the market price was calculated on the basis of the price manipulation, it seems that the plaintiffs who offered such cause cannot be accepted against the principle of good faith. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B) Following the argument that the market price of shares issued by the head of the tax office is not the payment date of shares, but the transfer date of shares; ① Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that, if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different, the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner"; ② Article 60(1) of the same Act provides that the value of the property shall be decided as of the donation date; ③ In the case of shares transferred to another person than the actual owner, the registry of shareholders may not be deemed to be different from the actual owner of the shares; ④ in the case of shares purchased in the shares market, the market price of shares shall be calculated on the basis of the transfer date of the shares purchased in the shares market; ④ In light of the fact that the transfer date of shares purchased in the shares market is 00 days before the date of acquisition of new shares, the acquisition price of shares issued by the new shares issued by the head of the tax office shall be deemed to have been transferred to the company without consideration.

(iv) to the extent of revocation of a reasonable amount of tax;

A) Disposition of imposition against Plaintiff Park Jong-A

(1) A gift tax of 2000 won on shares transferred on October 24, 2000

(i) As seen earlier, there is no illegality in the disposition of imposition of principal tax + penalty tax of KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 20.

(2) A gift tax of 200 won on shares received with capital increase on October 24, 2000

(i) Determination on the disposition of imposition of a principal tax + KRW 000 won of penalty tax + KRW 000 of penalty tax, KRW 200 of penalty tax (hereinafter referred to as "first disposition"), and the disposition of imposition of a gift tax on the shares transferred on December 31, 2000 (=principal tax + KRW 000 of penalty tax + KRW 000 of penalty tax + KRW 000 of penalty tax) (hereinafter referred to as "two disposition") for the shares transferred on December 31, 200

Although the head of Si/Gun/Gu has to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff Park Young-A with respect to 106,622 shares issued with capital increase on October 24, 2000, the market price of the shares should be calculated as 00 won per share as of December 31, 2000, the date of transfer of title, and impose gift tax on the Plaintiff Park Young-A by calculating the assessed value per share as of December 8, 2000, the date of payment of stock price as of December 8, 200, the first disposition is erroneous in the calculation of taxation standard. Since the shares subject to the first disposition are the shares subject to the second disposition as of December 31, 200, along with the shares subject to the second disposition, the head of Si/Gun/Gu tax office should impose gift tax by adding up each of the above shares, and in light of the separate taxation method, the second disposition of the gift tax, the additional tax on negligent return, and the method of calculating the tax base.

Furthermore, if the sum of the shares subject to the first disposition and the second disposition is calculated in accordance with the above calculation method, gift tax is KRW 000, the additional tax on negligent tax returns is KRW 000, the additional tax on negligent tax returns is reduced to more than the tax amount prescribed in the first and second disposition. As such, this court cannot determine that the tax amount to be reduced as above should be reduced from any of the above dispositions, since it is imposed separately by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the defendant, the above dispositions must be revoked.

(3) Determination on the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 on the 2001

On December 31, 2001, the head of Si/Gun/Gu imposed gift tax on KRW 000 on the taxable value (=9,700 x 000 won) calculated by multiplying the assessed value per share by 9,700 won on the shares that Plaintiff Park Young-A transferred for the transfer of ownership on December 31, 2001; (i) (ii) the head of Si/Gun/Gu imposed the gift tax on KRW 000 (=00 won of principal tax + KRW 0000 of additional tax); and (iii) the said disposition was unlawful in calculating the assessed tax amount on the second donation amount necessary for calculating the tax base (the taxable value within 10 years added to the relevant gift amount, which is within 10 years in calculating the assessed tax amount for 200 years; (iv) the pertinent calculated amount of lawful amount of gift tax is KRW 00,000; and (v) the amount of penalty tax is more than the legitimate amount of penalty tax imposed on the above principal tax; and (v) the aforementioned disposition is more than the penalty tax amount of KRW 000000.

B) Disposition of imposition against Plaintiff leB

(1) The gift tax amount corresponding to the 2000-year gift tax imposed on the plaintiff leB by the director of the Suwon Tax Office

(i) As seen earlier, there is no illegality in the disposition of imposition of principal tax + penalty tax of KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 20.

(2) On October 24, 200, KRW 000,000,000,000 for shares issued with capital increase; and

(i) Determination on the imposition disposition of principal tax + penalty tax of KRW 000, and penalty tax of KRW 100

The head of Suwon Tax Office should impose gift tax on the plaintiff leB by calculating the market price of 72,438 shares issued with capital increase on October 24, 2000 as KRW 000 per share as of December 31, 200, the transfer date of entry of title to the market price, and impose the gift tax on the plaintiff leB by calculating the appraised value per share as of December 8, 2000 as of December 8, 200, and imposing KRW 000 and additional tax as of December 1, 200 as of December 8, 200, the above imposition disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner. In calculating the legitimate tax amount, the principal tax is KRW 00,000, the additional tax is KRW 00, and the additional tax is KRW 00,000, the amount exceeding the above imposition disposition exceeds KRW 00 (including additional tax).

(3) Determination on the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 on the 2001

In accordance with Article 47 of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, the head of Si/Gun/Gu has imposed a gift tax of 000 won (= KRW 000 won for principal tax + KRW 000 for additional tax) on the 246,207 shares, the transfer of which was changed on December 31, 2001, by the Plaintiff YoonB, pursuant to Article 47 of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. The above disposition of imposition should be revoked because it is erroneous in calculating the amount of re-donation. The amount of legitimate gift tax calculated according to the above calculation method is KRW 00 for additional tax, KRW 00 for additional tax, KRW 00 for additional tax, and KRW 00 for additional tax. Thus, the amount of the principal tax imposed is lawful, and the amount of additional tax exceeds the legitimate amount of tax (=00 won +000 won). Therefore, the portion exceeding the amount of the penalty tax imposed should be revoked.

C) Disposition of imposition against Plaintiff Mediation

Although the head of Busan District Tax Office should impose gift tax on the Plaintiff ChoCC by calculating the appraised value per share as of December 31, 2000, the transfer date of the market price as of December 31, 2000 with respect to the 15,696 shares that were paid with capital increase on October 24, 200, as of December 31, 2000, the gift tax should be imposed by calculating the appraised value per share as of December 8, 2000, the stock price as of December 8, 2000 (=00 won for principal tax + KRW 000,000 for additional tax, and KRW 15,696 for additional tax). The above imposition disposition should be revoked illegally. The principal tax is calculated on the basis of the legitimate amount of tax, and the amount of tax should be revoked by including the additional tax on negligent tax returns exceeding the above tax rate of KRW 10/100 for additional tax (including KRW 000 for additional tax on negligent tax returns).

D) Disposition of imposition on Plaintiff Haddi

(1) The gift tax amount of 000 won on the 2000-year gift tax imposed by the head of the defendant Eastern Tax Office on Plaintiff HaD

(i) As seen earlier, there is no illegality in the disposition of imposition of principal tax + penalty tax of KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 20.

(2) A gift tax of 200 won on shares received with capital increase on October 24, 2000

(i) Determination on the imposition disposition (hereinafter referred to as "third disposition") of principal tax + KRW 000, KRW 000, KRW 1000, KRW 200, and KRW 000,000 (=principal tax + penalty tax + KRW 000, KRW 000) on the shares transferred on December 31, 200 and the imposition disposition of gift tax for the shares transferred on December 31, 200 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition 4").

As for the shares 45,606 shares, which were received as the plaintiff Haddi reasons on October 24, 200, by calculating the market price as 00 won per share as of December 31, 2000, the transfer date of entry of ownership, and imposing the gift tax accordingly, the third disposition is erroneous in calculating the tax base. Since the shares subject to the third disposition are 125,000 shares as of December 31, 200, as well as the transfer of ownership on December 31, 200, it is necessary to levy the gift tax by adding each of the above shares, and it is not erroneous in calculating the gift tax by calculating the additional tax, additional tax, additional tax, and additional tax on negligent return under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, as of December 31, 200.

Furthermore, if a reasonable tax amount is calculated by adding up the shares subject to the disposition No. 3 and the disposition No. 4 in accordance with the above calculation method, gift tax is KRW 000, the additional tax on negligent tax returns is KRW 000, the additional tax on negligent tax returns is KRW 000, and the amount of tax determined in the disposition No. 3 and 4 is reduced more than that prescribed in the disposition No. 3 and 4. Thus, this court cannot determine that the tax amount to be reduced as above should be reduced from any disposition, and each disposition above should be revoked.

(3) Determination on the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 on the 2001

The defendant's head of the Dongin Tax Office imposed the gift tax of KRW 000 on the taxable value of the shares 219,265 shares, the transfer of which was made on December 31, 2001 by the plaintiff Hadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

E) Disposition of imposition on Plaintiff KimF

As seen earlier, there is no illegality in the imposition disposition by the head of the Dong-dong Tax Office against KimF.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, among the disposition of this case, ① the imposition of KRW 00 (including additional taxes) for the gift tax of KRW 200 for the year 200 on May 3, 2010, and the imposition of KRW 000 for the gift tax of KRW 200 for the year 200 (including additional taxes); the imposition of additional taxes for the gift tax of KRW 00 for the year 200; ② the imposition of additional taxes for the gift tax of KRW 00 for the gift tax of KRW 00 (including additional taxes); the imposition of KRW 00 for the gift tax of KRW 00 (including additional taxes); the imposition of KRW 00 for the gift tax of KRW 0 for the year 200 on May 1, 2010 (including KRW 00); the imposition of additional taxes for KRW 200 for the gift tax of KRW 0 for the year 200 (including KRW 200 for the gift tax of KRW 200); and the imposition of additional taxes for KRW 200 for the year 200.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs Park A, leB, MaCC, and HaD is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and all claims of the plaintiffs Lee E-F and KimF are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.