Whether or not the purchase of shares and prior donation of transaction example is legitimate;

It is reasonable to deem that the instant shares were purchased and donated to the same person because of the fact that the gift tax imposed on the same person was paid without any objection, and that the statement by the transferor of the abnormal stocks is considerably specific, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the instant shares were sold and donated to

Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act:

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Purport of Claim

피고가 2003.9.22. 원고 최◯◯에 대하여 한 2002년 귀속 상속세 61,974,558원의 부과처분 중 26,652,800원, 나머지 원고들에 대하여 한 각 2002년 귀속 상속세 41,316,373원의 부과처분 중 17,768,535원을 각 초과하는 부분(취소청구세액 합계 129,513,110원)을 취소한다(처분일자 2003.9.22.은 2003.10.1.의 오기로 보인다)

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 8, 2002, the Plaintiff ○○○ is the wife of the ○○○○○○ who died on February 8, 2002, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are their children. The Plaintiffs voluntarily reported and paid KRW 405,469,388 of the inheritance tax by making the taxable value of the inheritance tax KRW 3,114,496,849 on August 8, 2002.

B. From March 17, 2003 to June 17, 2003, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiffs reduced the taxable value of inherited property by omitting part of the pre-donation property included in inherited property and inherited property. On October 1, 2003, the Defendant purchased 900 shares of ○○ Cable Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○ ○○ ”) from ○○ 300 on December 29, 200 (hereinafter “the instant shares”) to be donated to ○○ 600, 236,637,000 won assessed by the method of supplementary assessment of the above shares to ○ 207, 200, 300, 300, 400 won and 400, 207, 300, 2007, 300, 400, 200, 300, 207, 2005, 200.

C. The plaintiffs are dissatisfied with each of the above paragraphs (1) through (4) and filed an objection with the defendant on December 19, 2003, but all of the applications were dismissed on July 9, 2004, and thereafter filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on July 9, 2004. On June 2, 2006, with respect to KRW 1,420,000,000 for the transfer value of KRW 4,000 for ○ Cable TV stocks in the above paragraphs (4) to be excluded from the taxable value of inherited property and decided to correct the tax base and tax amount, but all of the claims on the part (3) above were dismissed.

D. In accordance with the decision of the National Tax Tribunal on June 16, 2006, the Defendant corrected the amount of 761,516,962 of the amount of the tax disposition under the above paragraph (b) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Defendant issued a disposition of imposing KRW 227,240,050 (61,974,558 for the Plaintiff ○○○, and 41,316,373 for each of the remaining plaintiffs) for the total amount of the inheritance tax for which the amount of the tax disposition under the above paragraph (b) was corrected and corrected (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap-1 to 3, 18, Eul-1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a)the plaintiff's assertion;

① Since ○○○○○ owns 2,300 shares of ○○○○○○○○○’s shares at the time of 2002, there was no reason to purchase another’s shares and give a gift to ○○○○○○○○○. Since the agreement on the transfer of shares between ○○○○○ and ○○○○○○’s shares attached to an erroneous declaration of securities transaction tax (Evidence No. 4) did not have a seal on ○○○○○○, it is reasonable to deem that ○○○○○ directly acquired shares from ○○○○○. ② Since ○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares were to have been disposed of in kind as collateral assessment of a certain percentage of shares at the price of KRW 5,00 per share among the loans to ○○○○ shareholders, this is merely unlawful by the Defendant’s assessment of the difference between ○○○○○○’s shares at the market price.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination on the part of ○○ Excursion Ship in this case

(i)a fact;

(A) Around December 29, 2000, the content that the shares are transferred from ○○○○ to 4,500,000 won for the shares of the instant ○○○○○○○○, respectively, was written on a share transfer agreement (a evidence No. 4, 1 share transfer agreement) and a share transfer agreement (a certificate No. 7-1, 2 share transfer agreement) with the transferee to ○○○○○○○, respectively. The first share transfer agreement does not contain a signature or seal of ○○○, while the second share transfer agreement contains a seal of ○○○.

(B) Since 2001, ○○ does not hold all the shares of ○○ excursion ship, ○○ acquired 1,500 shares in total, including 600 shares of ○○ excursion ship and 600 shares of ○○ excursion ship, and secured 15% shares in total.

(C) Around April 12, 2001, the Defendant notified the head of ○○ Tax Office of the result of the tax investigation on paragraph (1) and the head of ○○ Tax Office determined and notified KRW 50,858,612 of the gift tax by deeming the shares of the instant ○○○○○○○○○○ to have been donated from the shares of the instant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. The head of ○○○ paid the gift tax on October 31, 2003

(D) During the tax investigation conducted on May 19, 200, ○○○○○○○○ on December 29, 2000 with respect to the transfer of ○○○○○○○○’s shares, ○○○○ transferred the shares to ○○○○○○○ on December 29, 200, and then reported and paid the securities transaction tax to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ upon attaching the first stock transfer contract; ○○○○○ directly received the shares from ○○○○○ in cash; ○○○○○○○○ upon preparing the first stock transfer contract and reporting and paying the securities transaction tax; and ○○○○’s revised or reported securities transaction tax after signing the contract and signing the contract at the end; on the other hand, ○○○○○ was not required to make a false statement by misunderstanding the transferee at the time of making the above written answer; ○○○○○ on December 30, 2000, ○○○○○.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without a dispute, Gap 4,5,7,9,13 through 15,17,18 evidence, Eul 2,3,11, and 12 evidence (including each number), the testimony of the witness Lee ○○, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, even if the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s testimony was made after the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s transfer of stocks, without any objection, imposed on October 31, 2003. ③ The details of the ○○○○○○○’s answer prepared in the course of the tax investigation on the initial Plaintiffs on May 19, 2003 are consistent with the circumstances as seen earlier, and it is difficult to believe that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s testimony was made after the ○○○○○○○○○’s transfer of stocks, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the ○○○○○○○○○○○ was directly acquired the stocks.

D. Determination on the part on the ○○○○ shares in this case

(i)a fact;

(A) On September 9, 199, ○○○ was engaged in the value-added network business (Internet service supply business). Around May 28, 2002, 2002, ○○○○○○○○, a digital broadcasting leading company, made efforts to expand the business base through digital cable broadcasting protection around 2003, including establishing a strategic partnership relationship with ○○○○○, a digital broadcasting leading company, and then closed its business around December 20, 2005. ○○○ acquired the shares of the instant ○○○○ around 200.

(B) The amount of ○○○○’s income and income from 1999 to 2002 under the current status of filing the corporate tax, the amount of output tax from 1999 to 2005 under the Value Added Tax Return, and the amount of net loss from 2000 to 2002 from 202 are as follows:

Table Omission of the Table

(C) On March 15, 200, 200, ○○○○○○○ Company borrowed KRW 500,000,000 from ○○○○○○○○○○○ Company as collateral. After the commencement of inheritance, the Plaintiffs repaid the above debt amounting to KRW 50,000 among the shares of March 30, 200, (250,000,000 per share) and KRW 250,000 per share in cash, and upon filing a return of inheritance tax, the said debt amount was deducted from the taxable value of inherited property.

(D) Examining the trading situation of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2.6 months before and after the commencement of the inheritance, ① 17,000 shares for June 11, 201, 140 shares for ○○○○○○ 200, 2000 shares for ○○○○ 20, 300 shares for 14,000 shares for ○○○ 20, 2000 shares for 20, 2000 shares for 20, 300 shares for 20, 200, 300 shares for ○○ 20, 200, 300 shares for 20, 200, 200, 30, 200, 20, 200, 20, 30, 200, 20, 30, 201 shares for ○○○ 20.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without a dispute, entry in Gap18, 2, 4-4, 8, 13, and 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

(ii)judgments

The above facts revealed as follows: ① trading cases from June 11, 2001 to November 1, 2002, before and after the commencement of inheritance specified in a statement of changes in stocks and investment shares, and a statement of confirmation of capital gains tax (Evidence A7, 8) shall be at least 25 cases (5 cases where the transferee among them is a third party other than the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○). ② From 1999 to 2002, since the commencement of the business of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales business, it has been continuously increased from 200 to 2003, and it is difficult to view that the income amount in the year 2002 where the inheritance was carried out has been increased by 3 billion won or more in the previous year, and it is difficult to view that the business continued expansion or reorganization had been difficult to view that the market price of the Plaintiff’s business operation had been deteriorated as at the time of the commencement of inheritance.

3. Conclusion

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