1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the judgment below as to the plaintiff's additional assertion, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. Even if the market price is calculated according to the supplementary evaluation method of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26922, Jan. 22, 2016; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”), the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the transferor of the instant shares inspected the actual inventory through the daily report, etc. at the time of acquiring E’s shares, and that the actual inventory was KRW 713,034,780, different from the accounting book amount of KRW 435,029,898 on December 31, 2014.

If the error of the E’s total stock holdings in the account book was corrected, the net profit and loss value per share increases from 665,671 to 730,724 won, thereby making a difference between 830,000 won and 830,000 won, which is the stock transaction value of this case, is merely 9,276 won.

Nevertheless, it is unlawful that the Defendant made the instant disposition by applying the supplementary evaluation method only by reporting only the account books of E.

B. The legality of the disposition and the need for taxation in a lawsuit seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of the taxation disposition 1

Since the burden of proving the existence of the facts is imposed on the tax authority, in assessing the value of unlisted stocks under the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act at the time of the transfer of unlisted stocks, the burden of proving the net asset value, which is the tax base of the transfer income tax, is, in principle, the tax authority. However, in calculating the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the transfer date, the fact that there is a debt not included in the balance sheet of the relevant corporation is an exceptional reason in determining the transfer income tax.