Plaintiff (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

April 2, 2008

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap13418 Decided September 19, 2007

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 168,051,063 won from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000 against the plaintiff on May 10, 2004, and the disposition of rejection against the plaintiff on September 24, 2004 against the plaintiff on April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 (the reduction of KRW 1,108,145,350) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 168,051,063 against the plaintiff on April 1, 1999 to March 31, 200, and the disposition rejecting the claim for correction against the plaintiff on September 24, 2004 to the plaintiff on September 24, 2004 shall be revoked, respectively.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following changes among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

○ 6 parallels below the 3rd parallels: (a) change the imposition of “(2)” into “the first disposition(hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”) and/or (3).”

○ 4. Change of “instant disposition” into “the initial disposition” in the parallel of 8, 11 and 3 parallel of 10 pages.

In addition, considering the fact that there is no special circumstance to deem the value of new shares issued through capital increase with such fact that it exceeds the old market price in the Association-registered market, and from the Plaintiff’s standpoint, there is no inevitable circumstance that the Plaintiff is obliged to acquire the instant one shares in large quantity even at a price higher than the market price in the Association-registered market, it is reasonable to deem that the market price in the Association-registered market is an objective exchange value formed by the general and normal transaction even in the case of the acquisition of the instant one shares in the case of acquiring the instant one shares.”

Article 29(3)(B) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828, Dec. 30, 2002) shall be changed to “Article 31-4(1)(B) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15971, Dec. 31, 1998).”

Pursuant to the proviso of Article 29(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15971 of Dec. 31, 1998), “In addition, according to the proviso of Article 31-4(1) and the proviso of Article 29(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828 of Dec. 30, 2002),” “a change is made to “a change made pursuant to the proviso of Article 29(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828 of Dec. 30, 202)”.

The proviso of Article 29(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828, Dec. 30, 2002) stipulates that the proviso of Article 29(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828, Dec. 30, 2002) is a confirmative provision rather than a constructive provision. Therefore, even if Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828, Dec. 30, 202) provides that the above Enforcement Decree shall apply to the first donation after the enforcement of the above Enforcement Decree, the legal principle of Article 29(3) proviso of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828, Dec. 30, 2002) shall also apply to the transaction before the enforcement of the above Enforcement Decree.

Article 17 of the Act shall be amended to Article 17 of the Act: (1) It shall be amended to Article 17 of the Act.

○ 17. Change of the 5th page 17 to the 1. investor.

-----The part of the 17th 18th 17th 18 through 20th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 1998 [the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582, Dec. 28, 1998)] ------- the number of new shares,

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only for the part excluding KRW 262,077 among the disposition rejecting the correction of this case, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff and the defendant.

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)