Seocho 2017west 1294 (Law No. 16, 2017)

14. The timing of donation by a profit-making corporation that received a monetary grant prior to 14 years, 14,15, whether a statute based on the calculation of the income accrued from donation is lawful, and whether the additional

Considering the legislative intent of Articles 41-4 and 41 of the Act, there is no need to strictly distinguish the parts concerning the calculation of profits from donations and the timing of donation, the attribution of 14 years is unlawful due to lack of the Enforcement Decree, and the Enforcement Decree of the 15 years can not be deemed invalid immediately after the amendment, and thus, the proviso of Article 68(1) of the amended Act of 15 years can be applied retroactively to the portion of transaction prior to the amendment in accordance with the Addenda.

Article 41 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; Article 41-4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;

2017Guhap74672 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimAi-be1

O Head of tax office

June 21, 2018

August 23, 2018

1. On November 10, 2016, the imposition of gift tax (including additional tax) for each 2014 year in the attached Table [Attachment 2-1] that the Defendant made against the Plaintiffs on November 10, 2016 and the imposition of gift tax (including additional tax) for each 2015 year in the attached Table [Attachment 2-2] shall be revoked in entirety.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-eight of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of each gift tax (including additional tax) listed in the attached Table 2-1, which the Defendant made against the Plaintiffs on November 1, 2016, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Mm development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “mm development company”) is a juristic person for real estate development business, and each of the 30,000 shares issued by the above company is 15,00 shares (50%) of the 30,000 shares issued by the above company, 12,00 shares (40%) offered by the plaintiff KimB, and 3,000 shares (10%) offered by the plaintiffs, and KimCC, the representative director of the company of this case, is 3,00 shares (10%).

B. After investigating the gift tax on the Plaintiffs from September 5, 2016 to October 14 of the same year, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed that KimCC loaned the funds to the instant company without compensation and notified the Defendant of the taxation data related to the gift tax amount of KRW 7,819,58,749, and KRW 7,794,42,170 (hereinafter referred to as “the above funds appropriated in the provisional deposit account by KimCC’s lending the funds to the instant company”) on the virtual deposit account in 2014, on the ground that it received the benefit of donation from a specific corporation under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1357, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “the gift Tax Act”).

C. The Defendant: (a) on January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2015, the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 26069, Feb. 3, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26069, Feb. 3, 2015; (b) on the free loan of the instant money by KimCC, the Plaintiffs are subject to each of the following provisions: (c) Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 1, 2014; and (d) Article 31(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26069, Feb. 1, 201; hereinafter referred to as “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”).

(unit: Won)

Date of Disposition

Date of donation;

Gift Tax

Additional Tax

Total

Impossibility of Report

Good Faith in Payment

KimA

November 10, 2016

January 1, 2014

103,127,573

20,625,515

28,617,901

152,370,980

January 1, 2015

54,828,268

10,965,654

9,211,149

75,005,070

KimB

November 10, 2016

January 1, 2014

80,902,058

16,180,412

2,450,321

19,532,790

January 1, 2015

43,862,608

8,772,523

7,368,919

60,004,050

D. On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 26, 2017, but was dismissed on May 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Each disposition of this case shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Since the instant company was included in a specific corporation only under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014, the instant amount that the said company had previously been lent by KimCC should be excluded from the calculation of the gift income under the foregoing amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

2) The Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions by deeming the benefits calculated under the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as the Plaintiffs’ donated property, but the said Enforcement Decree is null and void beyond the scope of delegation by the mother law.

3) Even if each of the instant dispositions was lawful, the amount that KimCC lent without compensation constitutes the subject of calculation of the gift tax under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and even if such respective dispositions were lawful, the additional payment paid to the Plaintiffs shall be calculated from the date following the end of three months from the end of the month in which the deadline for filing the corporate tax base is included pursuant to the proviso of Article 68(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015 (hereinafter “amended by Act No. 13555”), and as such, in the case of gift tax attributed to the year 2014, the initial date of calculating the Plaintiffs’ additional payment shall be July 1, 2015; however, in the case of gift tax attributed to the year 2015, the Defendant rendered the disposition on May 1, 2014 and each of the instant dispositions on May 15, 2015.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014) expands the scope of black corporations to which the aforementioned provision applies by including "a corporation controlled by the controlling shareholder under Article 45-3 (1) and his/her relatives" in the specific corporation; and Article 31 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014) provides that "the controlling shareholder of the specific corporation and his/her relatives under Article 45-3 (1) of the Act, who do not fall under the category of "the controlling shareholder or his/her specially related person of the specific corporation," and Article 45-3 (5) 2 of the same Act provides that "a person falling under the above.

However, as seen earlier, the instant company is a corporation which does not fall under a deficit corporation or a corporation affiliated with or closed down business, and its controlling shareholder and his relatives’ shareholding ratio are at least 50/100, and it constitutes a specific corporation expanded by Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act after the amendment in Articles 41 and 2014 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it constitutes a transaction where the shareholder or the specially related person of the shareholder or the investor of a specific corporation under Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, who is the representative director of the instant company, has lent the instant money to the instant company without compensation after the amendment in Articles 41 and 2014

B) First, with respect to the imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) among each of the dispositions in the instant case, Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014, as amended by Act No. 12168, includes a profit-making corporation controlled by a controlling shareholder and his/her relatives in the law itself as a specific corporation, and delegates to the Presidential Decree without specifying the criteria and scope of the "profit-making corporation controlled by the controlling shareholder and their relatives" and "specially related persons of the shareholder or their relatives." The Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act amended by Act No. 12168, Feb. 21, 2014, which provides for the criteria and scope of the "profit-making corporation controlled by the controlling shareholder and their relatives" and the "specially related persons of the shareholder or their specially related persons," and Article 45-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act amended by Act.

However, the imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 among the dispositions of this case was conducted on January 1, 2014 regarding the gratuitous lending of the instant money by deeming that there was a donation of interest to the Plaintiffs. At the date of the donation, the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was in force before the revision of 2014, which was entirely stipulated the criteria and scope of the "controlling shareholder" and "the scope of profit-making corporations controlled by the Presidential Decree" and "the specially related persons of the shareholder or their relatives", which were delegated by the Presidential Decree under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act at the time of the donation. Ultimately, the imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 among the dispositions of this case against the Plaintiffs by the Defendant was conducted on the basis of only the above provision that delegated the requirements for taxation to the Enforcement Decree, which was extended under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, the imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 is unlawful without examining the remaining claims of the Plaintiffs.

C) Next, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, with respect to the imposition of gift tax for the year 2015 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) among each of the instant dispositions, even if the instant company received a gratuitous loan from KimCC before being included in a specific corporation pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is reasonable to view that the benefits that the Plaintiffs, who were shareholders, obtained from the said gratuitous loan after the enforcement of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act after the amendment of Article 41 and Article 2014 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, constitute the subject of gift tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(1) Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the profits earned by the shareholders of a specific corporation from the transaction for free offering of property shall be deemed the value of property donated to the shareholders. Article 31(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the calculation of profits earned by the shareholders shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 31(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, upon delegation, shall be calculated by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 41-4 to a monetary loan. Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where money exceeding 100 million won is loaned from another person free of charge or at an interest rate lower than the appropriate interest rate, the money shall be deemed the value of property donated to the lender on the date of loan. In such cases, where the period of loan is not fixed, the period of loan shall be deemed one year, and where the period of loan is more

② In this regard, the plaintiffs do not delegate the "determination on the date of donation" to the Presidential Decree. Thus, in calculating the value of donated property under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the latter part of Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis. If Article 31(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the latter part of Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the latter part of Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it shall be null and void because it goes beyond the delegation scope of the parent law or it has created taxation requirements without delegation. However, Article 31(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not distinguish the former part and the latter part of Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is difficult to accept the plaintiffs' assertion that "the amount shall be calculated on the following day after the first one year."

③ In addition, the Plaintiffs did not have any transitional provision regarding the treatment of existing loans, such as Article 6 of the Addenda of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act amended on January 1, 2014 (hereinafter “Article 6 of the Addenda of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) as amended on December 28, 1999, and accordingly, Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be deemed to have excluded the benefit related to the existing loan prior to the enforcement date from the taxable object. However, in calculating the benefit of donation under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act relating to money lending as seen above, it is difficult to accept the transitional provision for the taxation of the benefit related to the existing loan, and in applying Articles 41 and 41-4 of the Addenda of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the latter part of Article 41-4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which appears to have been applied mutatis mutandis to the person who received money and other benefit from the loan under the former part of Article 14 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

④ Furthermore, the Plaintiffs asserts that the latter part of Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides for the determination of the donation date, calculation of profits of a specific corporation, calculation of significantly low prices, and other necessary matters, shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, unlike Article 41(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, shall not be applicable in calculating the value of donated property under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is a provision on the determination of the donation date, in the calculation of the value of donated property under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the latter part of Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is a provision on the determination of donation date, shall not be applicable. However, Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which was amended in 2015, is also deleted from the latter part of Article 45-5(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it is also difficult to accept the amendment of Article 2514(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

⑤ The legislative intent of Article 41-4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to impose gift tax on the difference between the appropriate interest rate and the case where money is leased without compensation or at low interest rate in order to avoid the burden of gift tax on the direct donation by a person with a special relationship. The purpose of Article 41-4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to impose on the shareholder, etc. the obligation to pay gift tax on the specified corporation with respect to money lending to the specified corporation is to regulate the above act through the specified corporation. Therefore, it is not necessary to regard that Article 41-4 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is applied mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the profits of donation with respect to money lending without compensation by strictly separating the portion concerning the calculation of profits under Article 41-4 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the part concerning the time of donation. In the plaintiffs' assertion, the lending of money in this case continues to exist after the enforcement of Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, it is unreasonable to impose gift tax on the Plaintiffs' profits each year.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) Whether Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is invalid after the amendment in 2014

(1) Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003; Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "amended by Act No. 2003") provides that where a person who has a special relationship with a shareholder or investor of a corporation (specific corporation) who has deficits or has suspended or closed its business, obtains the profit through any transaction falling under any of the following subparagraphs with the specific corporation, "if the shareholder or investor of the specific corporation concerned obtains the profit", the amount equivalent to the profit shall be deemed the value of the property donated to the shareholder or investor of the specific corporation, and Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Dec. 30, 200) delegates the method of calculating the profit to the Presidential Decree. Meanwhile, the benefit under Article 31(6) of the amended by Act No. 2003 shall be multiplied by the ratio of shares, etc.

Although Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of 2003 delegates only "the calculation of profit" to the Enforcement Decree on the premise that the largest shareholder, etc. has obtained profit through a certain transaction with a specific corporation, it shall be deemed that the profit acquired by a specific corporation is "the profit acquired by the shareholder, etc." before the amendment in 2014, and thus, the value of donated property shall be calculated. In addition, according to the revised provisions of 2003, if the shareholder, etc. has no profit acquired by the actual provision, even if the property is provided to the specific corporation without compensation, it may be excluded from the subject of gift tax. However, pursuant to Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of 2014 before the amendment in 2014, if the property is provided to a specific corporation without compensation, it shall be deemed that the shareholder, etc. has obtained profit by its own and shall be liable to pay gift tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Du96396.

Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “2010 provision”) provides that “Where a shareholder, etc. of a specific corporation has gained a benefit as prescribed by Presidential Decree,” partial revision has been made. However, Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act before the amendment of 2014 is maintained as it is until the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014. In light of the taxation system of gift tax and the concept of donated property, it is reasonable to view that the provision is still a provision on the premise that a shareholder, etc. has gained a benefit corresponding to donated property under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, such as provision of property to a specific corporation without compensation, and thus, it is difficult to see that the provision on the benefit that a shareholder, etc. can obtain by such amendment has been made for 20 years prior to the amendment of the Act.

Furthermore, Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014) provides that the above provision shall apply by including the controlling shareholders and some of their relatives in the taxable income subject to taxation. Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the amount calculated by subtracting the amount equivalent to the value of donated property from the amount of income payable at the value of donated property, etc. after the amendment in 2014 shall be the amount (limited to cases where the relevant amount is at least 10 million won) calculated by multiplying the amount equivalent to the value of donated property, such as the largest shareholder, etc. by the number of shares issued by the same 10th shareholder, and it is reasonable to view that the above provision is identical to the above provision of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 201; 2000>

B) Whether the imposition of gift tax for the year 2015 is legitimate among the dispositions in the instant case

(1) Of each disposition of this case, the imposition of gift tax for the year 2015 is deemed to have been made on January 1, 2015 with respect to the gratuitous loan of this case. As seen above, Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of amendment in 2014, is null and void. Thus, the gift tax cannot be imposed on the Plaintiffs on the basis of the gift income calculated by applying the above provision. However, Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act aims to prevent the shareholder, etc. of a specific corporation having special relationship with the donor from gaining profits without tax burden or relaxing tax burden. ② Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where a shareholder, etc. of a specific corporation or a person with special relationship with the shareholder of this case obtains profits from the specific corporation from the transaction of assets, etc. without compensation to the specific corporation, the taxation of gift tax for the specific corporation cannot be imposed on the shareholder, etc., more than 10 years after the increase in value of the specific corporation.

D. However, in order to impose gift tax for the year 2015 among the dispositions of this case, the gift tax for the free loan of this case calculated by the Defendant was 137,070,671 won in the case of Plaintiff KimB, and 109,656,537 in the case of Plaintiff KimB, and the tax amount for the imposition of gift tax for the year 2015 in the case of Plaintiff KimB, among the dispositions of this case, was 75,005,070 won in the case of Plaintiff KimA, and 60,004,050 won in the case of Plaintiff KimB (including additional taxes) in the case of Plaintiff KimB.

Furthermore, the shares of the company of this case held by the plaintiffs cannot be seen as having been sold or sold properly, and it is difficult to calculate the market price by any other means. The price of the shares of this case should be calculated by supplementary evaluation methods under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. According to the purport of the entries and arguments in Section B No. 1, 4, and 5, the value of the shares of this case as of January 1, 2015 is 210,081 won per share, taking into account the loans of this case free of charge, while it is recognized that the value of the shares of this case as of January 1, 2015 is 204,043 as of January 1, 20, 2000 x 30,500 won per share x 40,500 won per share (=60,508 won per share) x 40,501 won per share (=60,500 won per share).

Ultimately, since the legitimate amount of gift tax calculated by deeming the increase in the value of each of the above shares as the plaintiffs' donated property is as stated below, the part of the disposition imposing gift tax for the defendant in 2015 is unlawful.

(unit: Won)

Value of donated

Gift tax base1)

Amount of final tax

Impossibility of Report

Additional Tax

Good Faith in Payment

Additional Tax

Total

KimA

90,570,000

2,079,887,811

28,228,000

5,645,600

4,742,304

38,615,904

KimB

72,456,000

2,122,50,816

20,982,400

4,196,480

3,525,043

28,703,923

3) Judgment on the third argument

A) Under Article 47-4(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an additional tax for unfaithful payment shall be calculated according to the amount of unpaid or underpaid tax 】 the period from the day following the due date to the date of voluntary payment or the date of payment notice 】 the period from the day following the due date to the date of voluntary payment or the date of payment notice 】 the interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the interest rate applied by financial companies, etc. to overdue loans 】 Notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 45-5 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, where a person having a special relationship with shareholders, etc. of a specific corporation trades with the specific corporation prior to the enforcement of the Act, the former provisions of Article 41 shall govern. In such cases, the amended provisions of the proviso of Article 68(1) shall apply to the due date for filing the gift tax base, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 68(1), and the proviso of Article 68(1) of the amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of 2015 shall be the last day of the month belonging to the due date of filing deadline of the gift tax base under Article 60(1).

B) In rendering each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiffs, the Defendant’s filing deadline for tax base was deemed as April 30, 2015 with respect to the gift tax attributed to year 2015 under Article 68 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the fact that the Defendant calculated an additional payment for unfaithful payment as of May 1, 2015, the following day, as of May 1, 2015, has no dispute between the parties.

However, even if the law was amended in favor of the taxpayer after the date of establishment of the tax liability, if the revised law had a separate transitional provision on retroactive application, the revised law shall be applied retroactively. The proviso of Article 68(1) of the amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended in 2015) was amended in favor of the taxpayer, later than before the amendment of the deadline for filing the tax base of the gift tax on the gift from a transaction with a specific corporation. Article 10 of the Addenda of the amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended in 2015), there were separate transitional provisions on retroactive application of the amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended in Article 10 of the Addenda of the amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended in 2015), and it constitutes "the case where a shareholder of the specific corporation or a related person of the specific corporation has traded with the specific corporation prior to the enforcement of the amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended in 2015)."

C) Therefore, the legitimate period of reporting the tax base of gift tax for the year 2015, for which the plaintiffs should pay for the free loan of the instant money, and the starting point of calculating the starting point of the additional payment for the erroneous payment for the erroneous payment for the erroneous payment for the past, are as listed below [Attachment 1], and the legitimate additional payment for the past that the plaintiffs should pay are as listed below [Attachment 2], so the portion of the additional payment for the additional payment for the past 2015, among each disposition of this case

[Attachment 1]

The loan period of this case shall be free of charge.

Report deadline for gift tax base;

Additional Payment Penalties

From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015

June 30, 2016

July 1, 2016

[Attachment 2]

Date of Disposition

Date of donation;

Gift tax (won)

Additional dues for unfaithful payment

KimA

November 10, 2016

January 1, 2015

28,228,000

1,126,2972)

KimB

November 10, 2016

January 1, 2015

20,982,400

837,1973)

4) Sub-determination

Ultimately, the Defendant’s imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 among each disposition of this case is unlawful and thus should be revoked. Of the disposition imposing gift tax for the year 2014, the part that exceeds the legitimate amount of tax calculated in B, 2015, as well as the due amount of tax calculated in B, and the above 3) should be revoked as unlawful, and the remainder except this shall be lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

1) On November 14, 2016, “the date of disposition against Plaintiff KimA as stated in the purport of the claim” appears to be a clerical error.

2) Article 41-4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where the period of loan is at least one year, the difference between the adequate interest rate shall be calculated by deeming the loan was newly granted each year on the day following the day on which the first year begins. Thus, the amount of the instant amount to be increased by adding the net asset value to the net asset value of KRW 301,887,306 (attached Form 1-2, which is the amount equivalent to the interest accrued when the instant amount was lent at an appropriate interest rate (8.5% per annum), which is an amount equivalent to the interest accrued when the instant amount was not granted without compensation, to the amount equivalent to the interest accrued during the business year 2015. The instant amount shall be calculated by adding the net asset value to the net asset value of KRW 15,687,097,729 as an unlisted corporation, and the instant company shall be the net asset value of KRW 12,012,395,196, the net asset value of KRW 76% per share.