early 2011west 2163 ( October 26, 2011)

It shall be evaluated according to the method of supplementary evaluation in view of the accumulated loss at the time of capital increase.

The purpose of this case’s stocks is to be subject to the supplementary assessment method if they were designated as the management issues within three months before or after the evaluation base date, considering the fact that the stocks of this case were released from the designation of the management issues in consideration of the reasonable market price reflected within a certain period of time even before or after the designation of the management issues, and that the losses were accumulated at the time of capital increase with consideration should be assessed according to the supplementary

2011Revocation of revocation of imposition of gift tax, 40264

KimAA et al.

One other than the head of the Eastern Tax Office

April 20, 2012

May 11, 2012

1. The imposition of each gift tax on March 2, 201 by the head of the Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office on the Plaintiff KimA and the imposition of each gift tax on May 11, 201 by the head of the tax office on each gift specified in attached Form 1(1) and the head of the tax office on each gift specified in attached Form 1(2) shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. DDDD content draft, Inc., an Association-registered corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Association-registered corporation"), passed a resolution on September 10, 2007 on the issuance of new shares to a third party at the meeting of the board of directors on September 10, 2007, and on November 27, 2007, 27, including the plaintiffs, paid 00 won per share for new shares (hereinafter referred to as the "new shares offering"). The new shares offering was completed by 27 persons, including the plaintiffs, to pay 100 won per share (hereinafter referred to as the "instant shares offering").

B. The Defendants: (a) assessed the shares of the non-party company as KRW 000 per share, an average trading price for two months before and after the date of the instant capital increase consideration; and (b) issued new shares to the non-party company against the plaintiff et al. at a price lower than the market price; and (c) deemed that the shareholders of the non-party company donated the non-party company the difference between the market price and the issue price (=00 won per share - 00 won) x number of issued shares) to the plaintiff et al., and (d) imposed each gift tax on the plaintiff KimA on March 2, 201, and on May 11, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed each appeal on June 3, 201 and June 15, 2011, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss each appeal on August 26, 201 and November 9, 201.

[Based on recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence (if there are several numbers, each number included), 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 1.2 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The value of the non-party company's shares at the market price under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") is the value of the non-party company's shares, since the non-party company was designated as the administration issue on August 14, 2007 and was cancelled on March 7, 2008, and was designated as the administration issue for three months before and after the date of capital increase. Since the non-party company was in the state of capital increase, the value of the shares assessed under Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") shall be the market price of the non-party company's shares. In the end, the non-party company was in the state of capital impairment, and the

2) Even if the obligation to pay gift tax is recognized to the Plaintiffs on domestic affairs, it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to determine the shareholders of the non-party company, who is the Association Registration Act, and to report and pay gift tax by calculating the amount of gift by each shareholder. Therefore, the imposition of additional tax should be revoked on justifiable grounds.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Article 63 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that, in principle, the market price of stocks of an Association-registered corporation shall be the average amount of the base price of the Association of Securities Business Association for two months before and after the base date of the report, where the transaction is suspended, and is designated and publicly notified as a management item within three months before and after the base date of the report, the transaction shall be made an exception to the supplementary evaluation method, and Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax

Even if the designation or suspension of trading was made, if the market price was properly reflected in a normal manner, then the designation date of the management issues of the non-party company should be returned to the average amount of the base price of the securities business association. However, since the designation date of the management issues of the non-party company was on August 14, 2007, the non-party company's shares did not fall under three months before and after the date of the instant capital increase, and since the non-party company's shares were traded with a stable market price for two months before and after the date of the instant capital increase, the disposition of this case based on the average price of the base price of the securities business

(c) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

D. Determination

1) Even if a person who is not a shareholder of the relevant corporation directly receives new shares at a lower price than the market price, gift tax is levied on the shareholder of the relevant corporation by deeming the difference between the market price and the acceptance price. (Article 39(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) In order to determine whether the market price of shares is lower than the market price, the number of shares issued by the E-listed or Association-registered corporation should be calculated based on the average market price (Article 63(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) before and after the evaluation base date; and (2) If the designation of the E-listed or Association-registered corporation is suspended for a certain period of time before and after the designation of the market price, the number of shares should be calculated based on the supplementary evaluation method if the designation of the company is made within three months after the evaluation base date; and (3) if the designation of the market price is made within the designated one-month period due to violations of duty to disclose or false entry in the application for registration, the number of shares should be calculated again by considering the market price.

2) According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments on Gap's 4,7, and 8, the non-party company was designated as a management issue on August 14, 2007 on the ground that the capital diving was 50% or more, and the reason for cancellation of the designation of management issues on March 7, 2008 due to the influence of the above issue, and the non-party company was found to have accumulated losses as of March 7, 2008. Therefore, in order to assess the non-party company's shares as of the date of this case's capital increase, the non-party company was at the designated status as a management issue for more than three months before and after the date of this case's capital increase, the non-party company should calculate the designation of the management issue of the non-party company as the average amount of its shares on the ground that the date of designation of the management issue was before March 14, 2007. Nevertheless, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting them.