The value of transactions conducted according to special circumstances in which external experts are recruited shall not be deemed the market price.

The value of limited transactions conducted according to the special circumstances in which external experts related to the business are recruited, which is much lower than the objective value, shall not be deemed the market value, and even if there is no transaction with a person with a special relationship, if the transaction value is objectively deemed unfair, it shall not be deemed the market value.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 60 (Principles, etc. of Appraisal)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 152,682,299 against the Plaintiff on June 4, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On October 26, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) donated 2,800 shares (the par value per share 10,000 won; hereinafter referred to as “the shares of this case”) of the △ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△ Development”); and (b) reported and paid KRW 10,00,00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is the transaction value of the shares of this case between the Plaintiff and KimB, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the transaction value of this case”).

B. The head of △△ regional tax office assessed the value per share of the shares of this case as 19,211,600 won in accordance with Articles 60(3) and 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data calculated by calculating the value per share of the shares of this case as 196,147 won in accordance with the provisions of Article 60(3), Article 63 of the Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. Accordingly, on June 1, 2008, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not report the gift tax on the shares of this case, and thus, on August 5, 2008, imposed KRW 152,682,299 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”). On August 1, 2005, the Plaintiff confirmed that the gift tax was reported and paid, and reduced the amount of KRW 1408,2747.

C. On August 29, 2008, the Plaintiff presented a request for review to the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection on the grounds of objection, but was dismissed on May 20, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 13 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Although the value of the instant transaction applied by the Plaintiff upon filing a gift tax return falls under the market price stipulated in Article 60(1) of the Act, the Defendant deemed the case where it is difficult to calculate the market price, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(2) Even if it is reasonable to calculate the value of the instant shares according to the supplementary assessment method for household affairs, it was unlawful since the increase in the value of the instant shares that occurred after the date of donation was considered in the specific calculation method.

(b) Related statutes;

It is the same as the entry in the attached statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Under Article 60 of the Act, the calculation of the value of donated property by the supplementary method of assessment stipulated in Articles 61 through 65 of the Act shall be based on the burden of proving that the market value is difficult to calculate as of the date of donation of donated property and that the market value is difficult to calculate. Under Article 60(2) of the Act, the market value is ordinarily recognized as normal when free transactions are conducted between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the amount recognized as the market value under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree such as expropriation, public sale price, appraisal price, etc. under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 49(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act includes six months before and after the base date of appraisal (three months in case of donated property) where there is a fact of selling or selling the pertinent property, and it shall be deemed that the transaction value is objectively unreasonable, except where the transaction value is deemed to be a normal market value established by Article 26(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

The following facts are established by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and evidence and evidence Nos. 6, 8, 10, 15 through 18 (including each number) and the overall purport of each statement and pleading: (i) the Plaintiff, upon the death of Gaba in the future, donated the shares from Gaba on October 26, 2005; (ii) the Plaintiff entered the Doba, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine, Doctrine 1, Doctrine 2, Doctrine 1, Doctrine 1, Doctrine 2, Doctrine 1, Doctrine 200, Doctrine 1, 505.

The plaintiff asserts that the transaction value of this case does not correspond to "a person in a special relationship" under Article 26 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act because the above KimB, etc. purchased the stocks of this case does not mean "a person in a special relationship" under Article 26 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. However, the prestigious provision of Article 49 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act stipulates that the transaction value with a person in a special relationship cannot be viewed as "where the transaction value is deemed objectively unfair" under Article 49 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the prestigious provision of Article 49 (1) 1 of the above Act stipulates that the transaction value with a person in a special relationship should

(2) Next, according to the health stand, Eul evidence Nos. 4-5 to 7, as to whether the value of the shares of this case calculated by the defendant according to the supplementary assessment methods, the defendant calculated the net asset value per share of the shares of this case as 294,99 won (=2,064,96,155 won ±7,000 won total number of outstanding shares) according to the supplementary assessment methods stipulated in Articles 54 and 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and after assessing the net asset value per share of this case as 47,870 won, the net profit value per share of 196,147 won [294,99 x2 + 47,870 won] ±5]. It is determined to be a lawful calculation method.

The plaintiff asserted that the increase in the value of the shares arising from the offering of new shares by △ Development, which was made on or around December 1, 2005 after the donation date of this case, was reflected in the above evaluation. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant seems to evaluate the net asset value and net value of the shares at the time of October 26, 2005, which was the donation date, and the increase in the value of shares arising from the offering of new shares, which was made thereafter, is not reflected in the above evaluation. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, there is no illegality as asserted by the plaintiff in the disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.