Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Yong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of Gangnam District Office

may 22, 2007

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap16489 decided Nov. 3, 2006

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

(1) The decision of the first instance court is revoked. (1) In the first instance court's decision, the defendant around December 8, 2005 revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 289,346,785, respectively, and its additional tax of KRW 7,178,897, respectively. (2) In the second instance, the above disposition is invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court is as follows: (a) the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, 4, 13, 4, 13, and 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5,

2. The part to be mard;

Ga. The plaintiffs' assertion: The 4th instance court Decision 4th 13th et al.>

The disposition of this case is against the principle of no taxation without the law, since the transfer of stocks under the Securities and Exchange Act is not deemed to fall under the transfer of stocks under the Securities and Exchange Act in case of payment of inheritance tax in kind, and thus, the transfer of stocks under the Securities and Exchange Act cannot be deemed to fall under the transfer of stocks under the same Act, and thus, it is against the principle of no taxation without the law.

E. H. H. H. : Not more than the last e.g. decision of the first instance court, five pages or less.

The remainder of the main claim and the conjunctive claim shall also be considered together.

(1) First, we examine whether payment of inheritance tax in kind constitutes transfer of shares under the Securities and Exchange Act.

(A) Article 1 and Article 6 of the Securities Transaction Tax Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that securities transaction tax shall be imposed on a transfer of share certificates pursuant to this Act: Provided, That where the transfer of share certificates, etc. falls under certain cases, securities transaction tax shall not be imposed, and Article 2 (3) of the same Act provides that "transfer" shall mean that the ownership is transferred at a cost due to contractual or legal causes. In light of the above provisions, securities transaction tax shall be imposed on the transferor without asking whether or not the profit is generated if the ownership is transferred at a cost, and where no securities transaction tax is levied on the transferor, the securities transaction tax shall be separately provided for in the Securities Transaction Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

(B) However, in case where the Plaintiff inherited shares and pays the inheritance tax in kind with shares, the legal nature constitutes payment in kind, and thus, it constitutes a transfer of ownership at a cost due to contractual or legal cause. Since the Plaintiffs exempted the tax liability equivalent to the inheritance tax paid in kind by transferring the shares of this case as payment in kind of inheritance tax, in such a case, securities transaction tax is to be imposed. Meanwhile, the fact that the market price of the shares of this case, which is non-listed shares, pursuant to Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is 149,50 per share, is not a dispute between the parties, the disposition of this case that

(2) Next, we examine whether the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of equality, and if the plaintiffs fail to pay the inheritance tax in kind with stocks, the securities transaction tax shall be paid and the inheritance tax shall be paid again. In the case of payment in kind of real estate, even if the transfer of assets was made, for example, without any income, for example, for the transfer of assets, transfer of security, return of ownership due to the exercise of the right to transfer, transfer of security, and cancellation of title trust, and transfer or land expropriation due to the division of the jointly-owned property jointly-owned property to recover ownership due to the disposal of the transfer of assets, transfer of security, transfer of ownership due to the exercise of the right to transfer, and cancellation of title trust, or payment in kind and bankruptcy procedure of the inheritance tax. Thus, in such a case, the transfer income tax shall not be imposed, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of equality (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu307, Dec. 13, 1983).

(3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' remaining primary claims and conjunctive claims are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jong-ok (Presiding Judge)