Since it is recognized that shares were transferred without payment of the price, gift tax is legitimate.

In fact, there is no financial data that the Plaintiff paid the acquisition price of shares, and further, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation that the Plaintiff did not pay the acquisition price of each shares of this case at the time of undergoing a tax investigation on October 2012. Accordingly, according to this, it is sufficiently recognized that the Plaintiff was transferred without paying the purchase price of each shares of this case.

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap27258 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

GangwonA (name before the opening of the name: BB)

Head of Mapo Tax Office

May 16, 2014

July 1, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 1, 2013 by OOO(including additional OOO) for gift tax of 2008, OO(including additional OOO) for gift tax of 2008, OO(including additional OO) for gift tax of 2008, and OO(including additional OO) for gift tax of 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) The Director of Daejeon Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation on the change of shares at CCC Co., Ltd. (D.; hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”); (b) on November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired 40,000 shares of the instant company (hereinafter referred to as “one shares”) from 20,000 shares each of the Plaintiff’s shares from 20,000 shares; (c) on November 10, 201, 160 shares of the instant company (hereinafter referred to as “the instant 2 shares”) x 10,00 shares each of the instant 20,00 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the instant shares”) x 10,00 shares each of the instant shares x 10,00 shares each of the instant shares (hereinafter referred to as “the instant shares”) x 20,000 shares each of the instant shares x 100,000 shares each of the instant shares (the instant shares).

Facts without any dispute, Gap's No. 1, 9, 13, Eul's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s acquisition of each of the instant shares and payment of the purchase price to the Gangwon, the Gangwon, and Park GG, as follows, cannot be deemed as a donation with this view.

On November 19, 2008, the Plaintiff deposited OOO (40,000 note x OO) in the corporate account of the instant company on November 19, 2008, but transferred it again to the Plaintiff, and then remitted it to EE and EF on November 20, 2008, which is next day.

The price of the instant 2 shares against ParkG was paid in the form of borrowing money, and the remaining amount was promised to be repaid.

(2) The value of each of the shares of this case assessed by the Defendant was higher than the actual value of the shares.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the purchase price of each of the instant shares is paid

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the statements in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Plaintiff did not have any financial data that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the shares to the Gangwon, the GangwonF and ParkG, and the fact that the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the Defendant at the time of undergoing a tax investigation around October 2012, a written confirmation that the Plaintiff did not pay the purchase price of each of the shares of this case to the Defendant at the time of undergoing the tax investigation. Accordingly, according to this, it is sufficiently recognized that the Plaintiff received the transfer of each of the shares of this case without paying the purchase price. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion against this cannot be accepted.

(2) Whether appraisal of the value of each of the shares in this case was defective

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant evaluated the net profit and loss value and the net asset value per share in accordance with Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act concerning the valuation of the value of non-listed stocks of this case as to the valuation of the value of non-listed stocks. Thus, there is no error in the evaluation of the value of each share of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.