Plaintiff 1 and one other (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Cho Jae-min, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gangwon Tax Office et al.

October 23, 2013

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap21010 decided October 26, 2012

1. The judgment of the first instance, including a claim that has been changed in exchange at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. Plaintiff 1:

(1) the portion exceeding KRW 11,105,00,00 among the disposition of imposition No. 1 listed in [Attachment 1] by the chief of Gangnam Tax Office;

Shebly, by the Director of the Tax Office:

㈎ 별지 제2 목록 순번 1 기재 부과처분 중 4,442,000원을 초과하는 부분,

㈏ 별지 제2 목록 순번 2 기재 부과처분 중 4,374,075원을 초과하는 부분,

㈐ 별지 제2 목록 순번 3 기재 부과처분 중 2,200,957원을 초과하는 부분,

㈑ 별지 제2 목록 순번 4 기재 부과처분 중 15,956,351원을 초과하는 부분을

Each revocation,

B. The disposition of imposition listed in the attached Table 6 No. 6 and the disposition of imposition listed in the attached Table No. 2 No. 6 issued by the defendant Kama Tax Office against Plaintiff 2 shall be revoked.

C. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of the litigation:

A. Plaintiff 1;

(1) 80% of the portion arising between Defendant Kang Dong Tax Office’s 80%, and the remainder, the above Defendant:

B. 85% of the portion arising between the Director of the Tax Office of Leecheon, the above plaintiff, and the remainder, the above defendant

Each share,

B. 75% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff 2 and the Defendant Kamdog Tax Office shall be borne by the said Plaintiff, and the remainder by the said Defendant respectively.

1. Purport of claim

Each of the dispositions in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, which the Defendants filed against the Plaintiffs, shall be revoked (the Plaintiffs changed part of the lawsuit as above in accordance with the Defendants’ partial revocation of the previous dispositions and the second imposition disposition, and the changes in the disposition disposition were corrected as shown in the separate list Nos. 1 through 4).

2. Purport of appeal

(1) In light of the purport of the entire arguments of this case, including the amendment of the purport of the plaintiff's claim, the revocation of the defendant's previous disposition ex officio and the second imposition disposition, the purport of appeal by the plaintiffs

A. The plaintiffs

It shall be amended as stated in the purport of the claim in the judgment of the first instance, including a claim to be exchanged in the trial.

B. The Defendants

The judgment of the first instance, including a claim for exchange change in the trial, is modified as follows. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) The Yong-Nam Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Yong-Nam”) is a corporation registered in the KOSDAQ on June 1, 1996 after its incorporation on June 1, 1970 for the purpose of manufacturing the portion and feed, and Nonparty 1 is the representative director of Yong-Nam.

After examining the details of the change in shares of the Yong-Nam system, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office of Do governor examined the details of the change in shares, and notified the Plaintiffs of the imposition of each gift tax in relation to the title trust of the above shares (hereinafter “each shares of this case”) under the names of the Plaintiffs 1, from October 24, 2000 to November 15, 2005.

Article 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The first tax amount per annum” shall be imposed on the Plaintiffs on the date indicated in [Attachment 1] list.

In addition, the Defendants (the disposition of each disposition of tax imposition listed in the No. 1 through No. 4 of the attached Table 2 changed from the address of Plaintiff 1 to the head of Echeon Tax Office) revoked ex officio the imposition of the existing penalty tax and re-assessment disposition, as described in the attached Table No. 2, on August 19, 2013 and September 4, 2013, in which the instant lawsuit is pending, in order to specify the types of and the basis for calculation of the respective penalty tax in the notice of tax payment on August 19, 2013 and September 4, 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 11 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The assertion that the title trust was not established

The Plaintiffs only opened a securities transaction account in their names at Nonparty 1’s request, and there is no specific agreement with Nonparty 1 on whether or not the securities transaction was made with Nonparty 1, the scale thereof, and the type and volume of shares. Therefore, each of the instant shares is not held under title trust.

【Non-existence of Tax Purpose】

Even if family title trust is recognized, its main purpose was only the price manipulation of the shares in Yong-Namnam, but not the tax avoidance. However, it is not recognized as a tax avoidance purpose because the reduction of minor tax burden has occurred in the process.

【Claim for Return of Gifted Property

Since the shares in the Plaintiff 2’s name were sold within three months after title trust, it shall be deemed that there was no donation from the beginning in accordance with Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter “Gift Tax Act”).

x) Claim for the double imposition of gift tax

Since the new shares acquired with the funds sold in trust under the names of the plaintiffs should be deemed as a substitute for the shares initially held in title trust, it is unlawful to impose tax by deeming that the secondary shares were re-title trust.

(v)the allegation of illegality in calculating the value of gift;

Even if deemed donation of title trust under the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is recognized, it is unlawful to calculate the donation value based on the market price formed artificially by Nonparty 1, etc. by manipulating the share price. In addition, the base date for calculating the tax base for shares received with capital increase on October 24, 2000, the transfer date, and the base date for calculating the tax base for the shares received with capital increase on December 31, 2000, the transfer date, should be calculated based on KRW 4,221, the appraised value per share at that time. The Defendants calculated the donation value based on KRW 6,450, the appraised value per share on December 8, 200, the transfer date.

⑹ 명의개서 전 주식 매도로 말미암은 증여의제 요건 불충족 주장

Since Nonparty 1 purchased shares in the name of Plaintiff 2 on October 24, 2000, 85,094 shares were sold on or before December 31, 200, the date of entry of change of holders, Nonparty 1 did not meet the requirements for deemed donation since the transfer of holders was not made.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Facts of recognition

(i)The primary manipulation of market price;

In order to sell approximately 230,00 shares of Nonparty 2, a major shareholder of Yong-Nam-nam system, Nonparty 1 operated the stock market using various borrowed accounts from April 6, 200 to September 5, 200, and sold the above shares at approximately 18.1 billion won, and deposited the price to Nonparty 2’s securities account.

d. 2 Doz. price manipulation

① On October 200, Nonparty 1 requested the Plaintiffs, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 8 to open and change a borrowed account. Accordingly, around September 2000, Plaintiff 1 opened and opened a Korea Investment Securities Account (Account No. 1 omitted) and Korea Investment Securities Account (Account No. 2 omitted) on November 27, 2000, and Plaintiff 2 around October 2000, respectively.

② Around September 200, Nonparty 1 withdrawn approximately KRW 8.7 billion from the securities account of Nonparty 2, and deposited it into his own personal account or Yong-Nam branch account through a complex fund laundering process, but deposited it into the securities account in the names of the Plaintiffs, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 8, and operated the market price by purchasing and selling shares in their names.

③ Nonparty 1’s details of stock trade (including stock allocation through oil increase) made by Nonparty 1 using the Plaintiffs’ account, and the imposition of the initial gift tax by Defendant Gangwon-do Head of the tax office, and the Korea-do Head of the tax office as follows

(2) On December 24, 200, 200. 25, 20. 30. 8. 1, 20. 8. 4, 20. 1, 20. 4, 20. 1, 30. 4, 20. 1, 20. 8. 4, 20. 1, 20. 1, 40, 20. 30, 30. 46. 1, 30, 40. 1, 20. 1, 40, 20. 8. 1, 20, 40. 1, 20, 40. 1, 206. 4, 30. 16. 1, 208, 386. 10. 1, 201

【Criminal punishment for the State's Operation

From May 2, 200 to August 25, 200, Nonparty 1 was indicted on the criminal fact that “In order to attract the transaction of Yong-Nam stocks through several borrowed accounts, Nonparty 1 issued an order to purchase stocks of Yong-Nam stocks of Yong-Nam with the aim of artificially attracting the transaction of Yong-Nam stocks (the first price manipulation), including the Plaintiffs, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 8, and Nonparty 6, etc. using the borrowed name account in the name of 20 persons, including the Plaintiffs, for the purpose of inducing the transaction from October 12, 200 to November 21, 200, Nonparty 1 issued a false order to purchase stocks of Yong-Nam-Nam (the second price manipulation) with the intention of inducing the transaction of Yong-Nam-Nam stocks (the second price manipulation) and was in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act by acquiring the false stocks of Yong-Nam-Nam, or by conducting a competitive transaction.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on October 23, 2002 and KRW 400 billion.

x. Criminal punishment for violation of the duty to report changes and the duty to report changes in stocks

① Although Nonparty 1 holds a total of 10,512,254 shares of Yong-Nam (50.54% of shares) through 12 borrowed accounts, including shares in himself/herself and his/her specially related persons from August 31, 2004, Nonparty 1 did not report to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Exchange during the period from September 1, 2004 to June 3, 2005. Nonparty 1 violated his/her large amount of duty to report, and Nonparty 1 did not file a summary order with the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Exchange from November 12, 2004 to 10, such as the bank and Nonparty 10’s account. Nonparty 1 did not file a summary order from February 7, 2005 to 208, which became final and conclusive with the Securities Futures Commission and the Securities Futures Commission’s order to report the change in shares issued from February 12, 2004 to 208.

② Meanwhile, among the 12 borrowed accounts listed in the above facts constituting the crime, securities trading accounts in the name of the Plaintiffs, which were used for the second manipulation of market prices, are included therein.

(v)transfer of holders;

The shares of Yong-Nam were transferred to the shareholders after the shareholders' list was closed as of October 24, 2000 when offering new shares, and the shares of the plaintiffs were changed accordingly.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the non-existence of title trust

㈎ 이 사건 각 주식의 실질 소유자

Based on the aforementioned evidence and facts, if Non-Party 1 was indicted for the following facts: (a) Non-Party 2 was in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, i.e., “Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 5, Non-Party 8, and Non-Party 6, etc. ; (b) Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were in violation of the order to purchase and sell shares in Yong-Nam for the purpose of attracting 20 from October 12, 200 to November 21, 200; (c) Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were in violation of the order to sell shares in his own account; and (d) Non-Party 1 were in violation of the order to sell shares in the name of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 from April 6, 200 to September 5, 200; and (d) Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were in violation of the order to sell shares in his own account or non-party 1’s own shares.

㈏ 명의신탁의 성립 여부

Article 41-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides, “In case where the actual owner and the title holder are different from each other in property (excluding land and buildings; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article), the value of the relevant property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner on the date on which the actual owner registers, etc. as the title holder, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in cases where the actual owner and the title holder have made registration, etc. in the future under an agreement or communication with the actual owner in the transfer or exercise of the right.” In such cases, as the above provision applies to property which requires a registration, etc. in the name of the title holder, regardless of the intent of the title holder, where the actual owner unilaterally registers it in the name of the title holder and regardless of the intent of the title holder, if the tax authority proves that it is different from the title holder, it shall be proved that the actual owner was a unilateral act of the actual owner, regardless of the intent of the title holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20

As seen earlier, the actual owners of each of the instant shares are Nonparty 1, and the Plaintiffs voluntarily opened a securities transaction account in their names at Nonparty 1’s request, and each of the instant shares was changed in the Plaintiffs’ names. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have donated each of the instant shares from Nonparty 1 pursuant to Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act.

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that title trust is not established since there was no specific agreement between the plaintiffs and the non-party 1 on the size, type, and quantity of the shares traded using the securities transaction account under the plaintiffs' names. However, it is reasonable to view that the bank opened the securities transaction account under its own name at the request of the other party and that the other party comprehensively accepted the fact that the other party will engage in the stock transaction under his/her own name in light of social norms. As such, the plaintiffs must prove that the transfer of each of the shares in this case to the name of the plaintiffs was made under the non-party 1's unilateral act regardless of the plaintiffs' intent, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge such fact.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

B. Concerning the non-existence of the purpose of tax avoidance

The legislative purport of Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is to recognize an exception to the principle of substantial taxation to the purport that the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system is effectively prevented, thereby realizing the tax justice. Thus, if the title trust was established for any reason other than the purpose of tax avoidance, and it is merely a minor tax reduction incidental to the said title trust, it cannot be readily concluded that there had been the purpose of tax avoidance. However, in light of the legislative purport as above, if the purpose of the title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance, it cannot be determined that there was the purpose of tax avoidance by applying the proviso to the above provision, only if the purpose of the title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance, and if it is deemed that there was the intention of tax avoidance, it cannot be said that there was no other purpose of tax avoidance, and the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in this case exists the person who asserts

Based on the aforementioned evidence and facts, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: (i) Nonparty 1 made a manipulation of shares by means of trading shares in Yong-Nam-Nam, using the Plaintiffs’ account; (ii) however, the reduced global income tax and capital gains tax are approximately KRW 28,416,316 by trading shares in the Plaintiff’s name; (iii) global income tax and capital gains tax reduced by trading shares in the name of Plaintiff 2 are about KRW 23,960,415; and (iv) it cannot be deemed that there was a minor reduction of tax incidental to the title trust; (iv) the existence of tax avoidance purpose due to the title trust should be determined at the time of the title trust; (iii) it is reasonable to deem that Nonparty 1 held more than 3% of the shares of Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam, and thus, it is reasonable to conclude that each of the instant shares was distributed to Nonparty 1 under the name of the Plaintiffs, etc., even if there was no significant increase in capital gains tax due to the price manipulation.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

【Claim for Return of Gift Property】

Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that “Where the donated property (excluding money) is returned within the time limit for report under Article 68 by agreement between the parties concerned, it shall be deemed that no donation has been made from the beginning.” This is because even in cases where the requirements for taxation of gift tax due to the title trust of stocks have already been met, even in cases where the title has already been converted to the name of the actual owner within a given conversion period, the actual owner of the stocks in trust can be retroactively exempted from the donation so that the actual owner of the stocks in trust can be prevented from tax evasion and the real name of the stocks can be prevented. However, if a trust owner, who is the actual owner, sells the property in the stock market without changing the name in the future, is deemed to be included in such cases, if the first owner of the real owner, who is the real owner, takes advantage of the above benefits, and the purport of applying the above provision is not reflected in the title trust of stocks.

In addition, since the property deemed to be donated to a trustee when the title trust of shares is held by the shares held in trust rather than the purchase price of the shares, it cannot be deemed that the donated property itself was returned by returning the sale price, and it is difficult to view that the sale price is still in the securities account of the title trustee.

따라서 원고 2가 이 사건 명의신탁주식을 매도한 것을 두고 상증세법 제31조 제4항 에 규정된 ‘증여받은 재산의 반환’으로는 볼 수 없으므로, 원고 2의 위 주장은 이유 없다[다만 원고 2가 이 사건 명의신탁주식을 명의개서 전에 매도함으로써 상증세법 제41조의2 제1항 의 증여의제 요건을 충족하지 아니하였는지에 관하여는 아래 ⑹에서 살펴본다].

· As to the argument that gift tax should be imposed overlapping

① The requirements for deemed donation under Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act are as follows: “The actual owner and the title holder are different from the property that requires transfer of the right or exercise of the right; even if new shares are acquired through sale of the first title trust, the above requirements are satisfied; ② As seen earlier, the legislative purport of Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is to recognize exceptions to the substance over form principle in the purport that effective prevention of tax avoidance by using the title trust system and realizing tax justice. As such, if each title trust, which takes place differently at different time, satisfies the requirements for deemed donation under the above provisions, it seems that the imposition of gift tax is proper; ③ Even if new shares are purchased with the price of the first title trust and the sale of the above shares are 5 percent shares, it cannot be concluded that the first sale of shares cannot be said that the first sale of shares, even if the first sale of shares, which is deemed to have been made through the sale of the shares under title trust, is not a new sale of the shares under title trust.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(v) as to the allegation of illegality in calculating the value of gift;

㈎ 시세조종으로 비정상적으로 형성된 시가를 기준으로 증여가액을 산정한 것은 위법하다는 주장에 관하여 살피건대, ① 시세조종이 이루어졌다고 하여 그로 말미암아 주식의 시가가 반드시 상승한다고 볼 수 없는 점, ② 비록 시세조종이 있었으나, 이 사건 각 주식은 상장주식으로서 불특정 다수인 사이에 자유로이 거래가 이루어지는 것이므로 그 당시의 시가를 객관적인 교환가격으로 볼 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 원고들도 당시 주식시장에서 형성된 시가에 따라 이 사건 각 주식을 매수·매도할 수 있었던 점, ③ 설령 주가조작으로 비정상적인 시세가 형성되었다고 하더라도, 그와 같은 원인을 제공한 원고들이 이를 탓하는 것은 신의칙에 반하여 받아들일 수 없는 점에 비추어 보면, 그 당시 주식의 시가가 비정상적이라고 단정할 수 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

㈏ 유상증자 주식에 대한 시가 산정 기준 시기가 주금납입일인지 아니면 명의개서일인지에 대한 주장에 관하여 보건대, ① 상증세법 제41조의2 제1항 은 실제소유자와 명의자가 다른 경우에는 ‘그 명의자로 등기 등을 한 날’에 그 재산의 가액을 명의자가 실제소유자로부터 증여받은 것으로 본다고 규정하고 있고, 상증세법 제60조 제1항 은 증여재산의 평가에 관하여 그 재산의 가액을 ‘증여일 현재의 시가’에 의하도록 규정하고 있는 점, ② 비록 유상증자를 통한 신주인수의 경우 신주인수인이 납입기일에 인수가액을 납입하면 납입기일의 다음날부터 주주의 권리의무가 생기고 회사에 대하여 대항할 수 있다고 하더라도 신주인수대금 납입일을 등기 등을 한 날과 동일하게 볼 수는 없는 점, ③ 기명주식의 경우 주주명부에 주식의 실질소유자가 아닌 다른 사람 앞으로 명의개서가 되지 아니한 이상 법에서 정한 ‘권리의 이전이나 행사에 등기 등을 요하는 재산에 있어서 실제소유자와 명의자가 다른 경우’에 해당한다고 할 수 없는 점( 대법원 2007. 2. 8. 선고 2005두10200 판결 등 참조), ④ 주식시장에서 매수한 주식의 경우 명의개서일을 기준으로 시가를 산정하는데, 유상증자 받은 주식을 달리 취급할 이유가 없는 점, ⑤ 피고가 주금납입일을 기준으로 시가를 산정하여야 하는 근거로 들고 있는 상증세법 제39조 제1항 은, 법인의 증자 시 주주가 신주를 인수하지 않음으로써 타인이 그로 인한 이익을 향유하게 되면 그 이익을 증여로 의제하여 과세하는 규정으로서, 명의신탁을 이용한 조세회피행위를 방지하기 위한 상증세법 제41조의2 제1항 과는 적용범위가 다른 점 등을 종합하면, 유상증자에 기한 신주인수의 경우에도 신탁된 주식을 증여받았다고 의제하는 기준시점은 그 주식의 명의개서일이라고 봄이 타당하다.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s shares issued with capital increase on October 24, 200 should be assessed on the basis of KRW 4,221 per share of December 31, 200, a transfer date, and gift tax should be imposed on the basis of KRW 4,221 per share of December 31, 200. The Defendants imposed gift tax based on KRW 6,450 per share of December 8, 200. As such, the instant disposition related to this part is unlawful.

따라서 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 있다[이에 관한 정당한 세액의 계산은 아래 ⑺에서 살펴본다].

⑹ 명의개서 전 주식 매도로 말미암은 증여의제 요건 불충족 주장에 관하여

The provision on deemed donation of trust property under Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act applies to “where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in property that requires registration, etc. for transfer or exercise of rights.” In the case of registered shares, unless a change of ownership is made in the name of another person who is not the actual owner of shares in the register of shareholders, it cannot be deemed that the above requirement under Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act has been satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10200, Sept. 24, 2009). The tax authority must prove that the nominal owner of the relevant property is different from the actual owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du540

① From October 17, 200 to November 21, 200, Nonparty 1 purchased 458,421 shares under the name of Plaintiff 2 (including the subscription price for new shares through oil increase) and sold 373,327 shares; ② out of the shares purchased under the name of Plaintiff 2, Nonparty 1 purchased on October 17, 200, 250 shares purchased on October 200, and 33,647 shares purchased on October 20, 200, and 33,647 shares purchased on October 24, 200 were transferred to the name of Plaintiff 2; ③ under the premise that Nonparty 1 acquired shares under the name of Plaintiff 2 on October 24, 200, the list of shares acquired on October 24, 200 and the list of shares acquired on October 24, 200 and the list of shares acquired on October 25, 2094 (the same shall apply).

According to this, Nonparty 1, prior to December 31, 200, sold 373,327 shares of the shares purchased in the name of Plaintiff 2 in the same year on or before December 31, 2000. The register of shareholders only stated the type and number of shares owned by the shareholders, and in this case, the listed shares traded through the securities transaction account in this case cannot be identified for each of the shares and whether the change of ownership is made (it does not submit evidence in this case even if it can be specified) and cannot be sold in the order of purchase. Thus, Nonparty 1’s shares acquired in the name of Plaintiff 2 on or before October 24, 200 can not be deemed to have been sold in whole or in part before December 31, 200, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the above shares were transferred in the name of Plaintiff 2 in the above date.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the entry of the change of holders on December 31, 200 with respect to 85,094 shares acquired based on capital increase with consideration under the name of Plaintiff 2 was made, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the imposition disposition specified in the attached Table 1 No. 6 (this tax) and the imposition disposition No. 6 (additional tax) listed in the attached Table No. 1 No. 2 (additional tax) against the Plaintiff 2 as unlawful. The above assertion by

⑺ 정당한 세액의 계산

㈎ 원고 1에 대한 부과처분

(1) The imposition disposition listed in attached Table 1 No. 1 and the imposition disposition listed in Attached Table 2 No. 1 (additional tax)

As to the 25,00 shares issued with capital increase on October 24, 200 to Plaintiff 1, the head of Gangnam District Tax Office should impose gift tax by calculating the market price as 4,221 won per share as of December 31, 200, the market price as of December 31, 200, but applying 6,450 won as of December 8, 200, the value of donated property by applying 161,250,00 won as of December 8, 200 (=6,450 won x 25,000 won x 25,000 won) and then imposed a disposition of imposition (this tax) listed in attached Table 1 No. 650 in attached Table 2 list. Accordingly, the amount of gift tax calculated by applying the correct per share as of December 31, 200 to Plaintiff 1 should be revoked as of December 1, 205, 205, and the amount of gift tax exceeding KRW 305,201,4000.

(2) The imposition disposition listed in attached Table 1 No. 2 and the imposition disposition listed in Attached Table 2 No. 2 (additional tax)

As of December 31, 2001, the head of Gangseo-dong Tax Office imposed a disposition of imposition (principal tax) listed in Table 1 No. 2, as of December 31, 2001 on the basis of the value of donated property calculated by evaluating 30,800 shares of shares of Yong-Nam Nam, which were transferred under the name of Plaintiff 1 as of December 31, 2001, as KRW 2,082 per share, and Defendant Leecheon-cheon Tax Office also imposed a disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in Attached Table 2 No. 1 as of December 31, 200 as above. However, each of the above dispositions is identical to that of the previous disposition of imposition (the taxable value less than 10 years added to the pertinent donated value) listed in Attached Table 1, 161,250,000 won, which is the tax base of the disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in Attached Table 2 List No. 3, the legitimate amount of gift tax should be identical to the previous disposition No. 201.374,475.

Therefore, the portion exceeding the above amount among the disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in No. 2 List No. 2 should be revoked.

3. Disposition of imposition (main tax) listed in Attached 1 List 3 and disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in Attached 2 List 3

As of December 31, 2004, the head of Gangnam District Tax Office imposed a disposition of imposition (principal tax) listed in Table 1 No. 3 (additional tax) on the basis of the value of donated property calculated by evaluating 10,837 shares of the shares of Yong-Nam, which were transferred under the name of Plaintiff 1 as of December 31, 2004, as KRW 1,443 per share, and Defendant Leecheon Tax Office also imposed a disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in Table 2 List No. 3 (Additional tax) on the basis of the value of donated property calculated on the basis of the value of donated property calculated on the basis of KRW 1,443 per share. However, each of the above dispositions was erroneous in the disposition of imposition (principal tax) listed in Table 1 2 and the disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in Table No. 2 List No. 2, 225,373,600, which is the tax base of the previous disposition of imposition (additional tax) as of KRW 2004.

Therefore, the portion exceeding the above amount should be revoked among the disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in the [Attachment 2 List 3].

(4) Disposition of imposition (main tax) listed in Attached Table 1 No. 4 and disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in Attached Table 2 No. 4

As of December 31, 2005, the head of Gangwon-dong Tax Office imposed a disposition of imposition (principal tax) listed in the table No. 4 of the attached Table No. 1 on the basis of the value of donated property calculated by evaluating 30,648 shares of the shares of Yong-Nam Nam, which were transferred under the name of Plaintiff 1 as of December 31, 2005, as KRW 4,223 per share, and Defendant Leecheon Tax Office also imposed a disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in the table No. 4 of the attached Table No. 2 as of this point is as seen earlier. However, each of the above dispositions was erroneous in the imposition disposition listed in the table No. 1 of the attached Table No. 3 (principal tax) and the disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in the table No. 3 of the attached Table No. 2 as of KRW 241,013,391, which is the tax base of the tax base of the second attached Table No. 3, the legitimate amount of gift tax should be the same as the previous principal tax, one.

Therefore, the portion exceeding the above amount should be revoked among the disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in [Attachment 2 List 4].

㈏ 원고 2에 대한 부과처분

(5) Disposition of imposition (main tax) listed in Attached 1 List 5 and disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in Attached 2 List 5

Each of the above dispositions made against Plaintiff 2 by the director of the Korea Tax Office against Plaintiff 2 is legitimate as stated in the item for the re-calculated amount of gift tax of Plaintiff 2 on October 24, 2000 among the attached Table 3’s “reasonable amount of tax calculation.”

(6) Disposition of imposition (main tax) listed in Attached 1 List 6 and disposition of imposition (additional tax) listed in Attached 2 List 6

위 ⑹에서 살펴본 것처럼, 피고 용인세무서장이 원고 2에 대하여 한 위 각 처분은 위법하므로 취소되어야 한다.

⑻ 소결

따라서 이 사건 각 처분 중, ① 원고 1에게, ㉠ 피고 강동세무서장이 한 별지 제1 목록 순번 1 기재 부과처분 중 11,105,000원을 초과하는 부분, ㉡ 피고 이천세무서장이 한 별지 제2 목록 순번 1 기재 부과처분 중 4,442,000원을 초과하는 부분, ㉢ 피고 이천세무서장이 한 별지 제2 목록 순번 2 기재 부과처분 중 4,374,075원을 초과하는 부분, ㉣ 피고 이천세무서장이 한 별지 제2 목록 순번 3 기재 부과처분 중 2,200,957원을 초과하는 부분, ㉤ 피고 이천세무서장이 한 별지 제2 목록 순번 4 기재 부과처분 중 15,956,351원을 초과하는 부분을 각 취소하여야 하고, ② 피고 용인세무서장이 원고 2에게 한 별지 제1 목록 순번 6 기재 부과처분과 별지 제2목록 순번 6 기재 부과처분을 각 취소하여야 한다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above, including the claims that have been changed in exchange in the trial. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)