The value of transactions conducted under special circumstances on condition of participation in the development project shall not be deemed the market value.

The value of transactions limited according to special circumstances, which is considerably lower than the objective value, shall not be deemed the market value, and even if transactions are not conducted with a person with a special relationship, if the transaction value is objectively deemed unfair, it shall not be deemed the market value.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 60 (Principles, etc. of Appraisal)

1.The plaintiff (Appointed Party)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,325,265,89, gift tax of KRW 14,133,780, gift tax of KRW 111,410,310,310 for gift tax of KRW 205 is revoked for each inheritance share in attached Form 2006, with respect to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the appointed Party A, ParkB, ParkCC, and ParkD (hereinafter referred to as the “designated Party”).

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") are the successors of the network gambling;

B. On Oct. 26, 2005, ParkE donated 5,600 shares of △ Development (hereinafter “the gift shares of this case”) from the Plaintiff, SelectionB, Park CC, and Nonparty Park F, while holding 1,400 shares of 7,00 shares of △ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△ Development”). On Oct. 26, 2005, ParkE donated 2,80 shares of △ Development (hereinafter “the gift shares of this case”). The shares of △ Development were 4,200 shares of △ Development.

C. ParkE: (a) on December 01, 2005, 2005, 100 shares issued with capital increase of 10,000 won or more (5,100,000 won or more per share); (b) 5,100 shares exceeding 3,060 shares issued with shares owned by ParkE (60%) by acquiring all shares issued with capital increase of 10,000 won per share; and (c) 3,060 shares issued with shares owned by △ Development (hereinafter “instant shares issued with capital increase”); and (d) 9,30 shares issued with shares in △ Development.

D. ParkE, on December 08, 2005, purchased 6,000 shares of △△ Industrial Development (hereinafter “△△ Industrial Development”) from Kim H, 3,100 shares from Kim J, and 800 shares from HaK, and purchased 6,00 shares of △△ Industrial Development (hereinafter “△△△”) from Hah, respectively, and purchased 1,100 shares from Hah, and 6,000 shares of △△ Industrial Development.

E. ParkE, △△ Industrial Development, on December 23, 2005, took over all the shares of capital increase with 5,000 capital increase (18,00 capital increase per share) on December 23, 2005, thereby 24,000 capital for the development of △△ industry.

F. On October 1, 2006, Park E-young died. On September 1, 2006, the Plaintiff et al. inherited 9,300 shares of △△ Development and 24,000 shares of △△ Industry Development (hereinafter “the inheritance shares of this case”) owned by △△△ on September 07, 2006, and filed an inheritance tax return (hereinafter “the inheritance tax return of this case”) with the total sum of KRW 15,00,000 shares of △△ Development, KRW 93 million per share of △△ Development, KRW 36 million per share of △△ Development, and KRW 129,00,000 per share of △△ Development, and KRW 10,000 per share of △△ Development and △△ Industry Development.

G. On June 04, 2008, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation of the inheritance tax, etc. on the inherited property of Park E; (b) notified the Defendant of the result; (c) on June 1, 2008, the Defendant assessed 458,483,200 won for the gift 5,600 shares of this case, which are the gift 5,600 shares of this case, which were donated by the Plaintiff, Selection, ParkB, ParkCC, and Non-Party ParkF; and (d) on the gift 2,040 shares of this case, which were deemed to have been donated due to the increase of shares by fechis, 97,62,960 won for the gift tax, 30 shares of this case, which were assessed as KRW 1,537,392,00 due to the difference between the low price of inherited shares, 267,840,000 shares for △ Development; and (d) on the inheritance 130136,1501.408 shares

H. On September 26, 2008, the Plaintiff et al. appealed to the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection. The Board of Audit and Inspection decided to dismiss the request on May 20, 2009.

[Ground of Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-9, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-4-1, 3-5-1, Gap evidence 6-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-3-2, Eul evidence 7-1 through 4, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1, 2-1, 10-2, 11-1, 2-1, and 2-1, and 2-1, respectively, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's principal

1) According to Article 60(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) and Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), if the normal transaction value reflects the objective exchange value of the shares inherited or donated during the period of six months before or after the date of commencing the inheritance (in case of a donation, within three months before or after the date of commencing the inheritance), it constitutes the market value as of the date of commencing the inheritance or donation.

The plaintiff et al. made transactions with 10,000 won per share of the shares in △ Development from November 09, 2005 to 14,000 won per share of the shares in △△ Industry Development from November 14, 2005, with the value of the shares in this case evaluated and paid the inheritance tax by reporting and paying the value of the shares in this case, and the price of the case so transacted is an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant assessed inherited property and donated property by deeming that the gift shares, shares issued with capital increase, and inherited shares are not based on the above transactional value, but fall under a case where there is no example or it is difficult to compute the market price, is unlawful.

2) 가사 보충적 평가방법에 의하여 가액을 평가하여야 한다고 하더라도, 최근 3년 간 순손익액의 가중평균에 의한 l주당 가액과 1주당 평가액을 대조하면, ① □□개발주식에 대하여, ㉠ 평가기준일 2005.09.09.의 경우 최근 3년간 순손익액의 가중평균에 의한 1주당 가액이 35,060원임에도 1주당 평가액을 81,872원(91,872원은 오기로 보인다)으로, ㉡ 평가기준일 2005.10.26.의 경우 최근 3년간 순손익액의 가중평균에 의한 1주당 가액이 47,870원임에도 1주당 평가액을 196,147원으로, ㉢ 평가기준일 2005.11.09.의 경우(2005.10.26.는 오기로 보인다)의 경우 최근 3년간 순손익액의 가중평균에 의한 1주당 가액이 47,870원임에도 1주당 평가액을 184,851원으로, ㉣ 평가기준일 2005.11.14.의 경우 최근 3년간 순손익액의 가중평균에 의한 1주당 가액이 47,870원 임에도 1주당 평가액을 184,893원으로, ㉤ 평가기준일 2005.12.01.의 경우 최근 3년간 순손익액의 가중평균에 의한 1주당 가액이 47,870원임에도 1주당 평가액을 182,754원으로, ② △△산업개발 주식에 대하여 평가가준일 2005.12.23.의 경우 최근 3년간 순 손익액의 가중평균에 의한 1주당 가액이 800원임에도 1주당 평가액을 12,660원으로 평가하였는데, 이는 합리적 근거 없이 증액 평가한 것이다.

In addition, the assessment value per share of △△ Industrial Development shall be calculated as KRW 800,00,000,000,000 as of October 26, 2005, which is the date of donation. The Defendant assessed the net asset value including the value increase due to capital increase by issuing new stocks on December 23, 2005, and assessed as KRW 12,660,00,000 per share of the development of △△ Industrial Development. As such, the instant disposition was erroneous

(b) Related statutes;

It is the same as the entry in the attached statutes.

C. Determination

1) The plaintiff's first assertion is based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as the "date of appraisal"), the market price of the property on which the inheritance tax or the gift tax is levied shall be based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as the "date of appraisal"), and the market price shall be the value which is generally deemed to have been established when a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons, and under Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, "those recognized as the market price as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation, public sale price, appraisal price, etc." under Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, and "those recognized as the market price as prescribed by Presidential Decree" means six months before or after the date of appraisal (four months in the case of donated property; hereafter referred to as the "sale, etc." in this paragraph) or public sale (hereafter referred to as the "sale, etc." in this paragraph).

2) In full view of each of the statements in the evidence No. 4-2, No. 5-3, No. 11-1, No. 2, and No. 12-1, No. 12-1, and No. 10, it is recognized that the following transactions have been made within the evaluation period from September 09, 2005, which is the date of donation of shares and capital increase for consideration, and 4 months before and after the date of capital increase for consideration, and from March 11, 2006, which is the date of inheritance with respect to the inherited shares of this case, within six months before and after the date of inheritance.

3) However, the "market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance" refers to the objective exchange price formed through normal transactions in principle, and in order to regard the above sale price as the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, there must be circumstances to view that the sale price is objectively and appropriately reflecting the general and normal exchange price, and there should be no change in the price between the commencement of the inheritance and the above sale price (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu10765, Oct. 10, 1998).

4) However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 6-2, No. 1, No. 1, No. 2-2, No. 3-1, No. 2-1, No. 6-1, No. 6-1, No. 1, 2-2, and No. 6-1 of the evidence No. 6-1, 1, 2-1 of the evidence No. 6-1, 1, 100, 100 won per share as of the date of the instant donation under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree, the appraised value of No. 1,000 won per share as of Oct. 1, 2005, 205, 100 won per share as of the date of the instant donation of shares, 10,000 won per share as of Oct. 1, 2016, 2005, 105, 105, 105, 106.18

Therefore, it is difficult to view the sale price of the shares in △ Development as the normal transaction price reflecting the objective exchange value appropriately. Thus, the disposition of this case by the Defendant, which applied the appraised and calculated value to the market price pursuant to the provisions of Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree, is legitimate.

5) 또한 갑6호증의 2, 을1호증, 을2호증의 1, 2 을3호증의 1, 2, 을6호증의 7, 8, 을8호증의 2, 을12호증의 3 내지 10의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① △△산업개발 주식에 대하여 위 거래가 이루어진 가액은 박EE, 조GG, 김MM, 강NN이 2005.12.08. 재산가치가 거의 없는 휴면법인인 주식회사 ●●●●날의 발행주식 전부를 인수(인수와 동시에 상호를 △△산업개발로 변경)할 당시의 거래가액인 사실, △△산업개발은 위 거래 이후 2005.12.23. 유상증자(1주당 5만 원으로 하여 18,000주 증자)를 실시하여 9억 원이 자본유입되어 1주당 가치가 인수당시에 비하여 현격히 높아진 사실,② △△산업개발의 위 매매사례가액인 1,500원은 시행령 제54조 의 규정에 따라 산정된 이 사건 상속 주식의 상속개시일인 2006.03.11. 당시의 1주당 평가액인 12,660원에 비하여 현저히 낮은 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the transaction price of the shares in △△ Industrial Development as the normal transaction price that properly reflects the objective exchange value. Thus, the disposition of this case by the Defendant, which applied the assessed and calculated value to the market price pursuant to Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree, is legitimate.

D. As to the plaintiff's second argument, the plaintiff argued that the defendant calculated the appraised value per share by increasing the weighted average value of net profit and loss for the last three years in spite of the existence of a value per share by the weighted average of net profit and loss for the last three years in △△ Development and △△△ Industry. However, according to Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the Act, the stocks and investment shares not listed in the Korea Securities Exchange shall be appraised by the method prescribed by the Enforcement Decree in consideration of the assets, profits, etc. of the pertinent corporation, and Article 54 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be appraised by the method prescribed by the Enforcement Decree in consideration of the assets, profits, and investment shares of the pertinent corporation. In the case of real estate corporations falling under Article 158 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and corporations, a financial institution guarantees the weighted average value of net profit and loss for the preceding three years by the net asset value per share divided by the net asset value of the pertinent corporation by 20 per share and net asset value per share.

E. However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged in the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4-8, 12, and 6-1 through 6-6.

F. According to the above facts of recognition, the following points are revealed.

1) The ratio of 81% [=4,409,902,375 won [i.e., land 1,370,916,916,160 won + building 3,038,986,215 won + building 3,038,986,215 won] as of December 1, 2005, 88% [4,409,902,375 won [i.e., land 1,370,916,160 won + land 3,038,863,145 won]; 1,420,742,539; 205% of the total value of land owned by the pertinent corporation} as of December 1, 2005 [3,5] 88% of the total value of land owned by the pertinent corporation 3,038,975 won [36,75% of the total value of land owned by the pertinent corporation];

2) The value per share based on the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for the last three years as of the base date of appraisal (i.e., the amount calculated by dividing the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for the last three years per share by 10%, which is the net value exchange rate of net profit and loss) is 35,060 won for the shares of △ Development on September 09, 2005, which is at the time of donation of the shares of this case (i.e., KRW 3,506 ± 10%); 47,870 won for the shares of △ Development on December 01, 205, which is at the time of donation of the shares of this case; and 47,870 won for the shares of △ Development on December 01, 2005, which are at the time of inheritance of the shares of this case; and 98,850 won for the shares of △ Development on March 11, 2006,

3) In addition, the net asset value as of the evaluation base date of the above △△ Development and △△ Industrial Development shares as of 113,081 won ( =791,570,061 won to 7,000 won, and less than KRW 7,000; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the gift shares at the time of the donation of this case; 272,677 won (=1,908,741,835 won to 7,000 won to △ Development shares at the time of the donation of this case; hereinafter the same shall apply); and 272,67 won at the time of the offering of new shares to △ Development shares at the time of the offering of new shares to △△ Development (1,908,741,835 won to 7,000 won to △ Development shares at the time of the inheritance of this case; hereinafter the shares at the time of the inheritance of this case are 226,285 won (=2816,486

G. Therefore, if the assessment value per share of △△△ development as of the base date of appraisal under Article 54(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree is calculated, the assessment value per share of △△△△△△△§ 81,782 won [= [(70,120 won + 35,060 won + 2) + 339,242 won (net asset value KRW x 33), 113,081), 18,754 [20 won per share of △△§ 265,740] as of December 01, 205] The assessment value per share of △△§ 20,754 [20 won per share of △△△§65,740] + 818,031 won (net asset value + 27,670 won per share) + 165,7850 won per share].

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the assessment value per share of the shares for △△ Industrial Development is unlawful on the basis of the donation date. However, the instant disposition is related to inheritance other than the donation of shares for △△ Industrial Development, and the assessment value per share of shares for △△ Industrial Development as of March 11, 2006, which was the date of commencing the inheritance, is 12,660. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit).

H. Ultimately, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant case is lawful, and thus, the Plaintiff’s principal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is judged the same as the order.