1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 24, 2009, C, a smallest server, transferred 3,00 shares issued by D Co., Ltd. on December 24, 2009 to the Plaintiff B, 1,00 shares to the Plaintiff, and reported and paid securities transaction tax.

(hereinafter “instant shares”) total of 4,00 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”). B

After conducting an investigation into the transfer of shares from February 25, 2016 to April 9, 2016, the head of the Gangnam District Tax Office notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming that C was a donation to the Plaintiffs of the instant shares.

C. The Defendant calculated the value of the instant shares as KRW 162,172 per share in accordance with the supplementary assessment method, and on June 1, 2016, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff A of the gift tax of KRW 40,215,220 (including additional payment for unfaithful payment of KRW 14,493,941) on December 24, 2009, and the Plaintiff B of the gift tax of KRW 161,922,060 (including additional payment for unfaithful payment of KRW 58,358,223) on December 24, 2009.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiffs appealed against this and filed an appeal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on April 5, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant alleged the Plaintiffs’ assertion while rendering the instant disposition, calculated an additional payment for the erroneous payment from March 31, 2010, which was the deadline for voluntary payment under Article 70 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax Act”), and imposed on the Plaintiffs.

However, gift tax is a tax item for which tax liability is determined by the government’s decision, and since there is no tax liability because the Plaintiffs’ specific tax liability was not determined before June 1, 2016, the additional payment for arrears, which is the nature of interest for arrears, should be imposed from June 1, 2016.

Therefore, among the dispositions of this case, the plaintiffs' tax liability is not confirmed.