early 2009 middle 2072 (2010.03.04)

Since it is reasonable to deem that shares were donated without compensation, the imposition of gift tax is legitimate.

Since it is reasonable to deem that forfeited stocks have been cultivated according to their own arbitrary will and that stocks have been donated to a third party without compensation, the disposition of imposition is legitimate.

2010Guhap2306 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

December 23, 2010

on 2011.27

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 17,083,50 on the Plaintiff on December 8, 2006 and imposed a gift tax of KRW 19,938,09,09 on May 10, 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 1, 2009, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that (i) the Plaintiff received 3,400 shares from EA and LB on December 8, 2006, 3,400 shares, and 800 shares from ○○ Master Company Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○ Master”) without compensation; (b) paid and notified the gift tax of KRW 39,249,810 calculated by including the appraised value per share of the above shares in KRW 50,060 (hereinafter “one disposition in this case”); (iii) on January 1, 2004, on the ground that the Plaintiff received an allocation of 2.50 shares of forfeited shares at the time of capital increase (5,00 won per share, 500 won per share); (c) on the ground that the Plaintiff received an investigation into the relevant person’s shareholder registry and the transfer of shares to the competent court, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the amount of tax base for capital increase and the amount of tax on KRW 134,509,209.7.2000.

C. The Defendant conducted a reinvestigation pursuant to the above decision and confirmed that the time when the Plaintiff received forfeited stocks from the Plaintiff was not on January 1, 2004 but on July 10, 2002. On May 10, 2010, the Defendant again issued a notice of gift tax of KRW 19,938,090 calculated on the basis of the market price of forfeited stocks (won 61,966 per share) at the time of July 10, 202 (hereinafter “instant second disposition”) and revoked the first second disposition on the 12th of the same month.

D. When the head of the Incheon District Tax Office corrected the initial disposition of imposing corporate tax on △△ comprehensive, the head of the Incheon District Tax Office notified the Defendant of the appraised value per share of △△ comprehensive stocks at the time of December 8, 2006 to KRW 28,306, and on December 2, 2010, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of the instant first disposition to KRW 17,083,50, which was calculated based on the above 28,306 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 24, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

With regard to the forfeited shares as of July 10, 2002, all acts related to capital increase with consideration were committed by ParkCC, the representative director, and the Plaintiff, who was an employee on the simple accounting date, was unaware of the fact that the forfeited shares were allocated.

With respect to the share donation by EA and LB on December 8, 2006, the Plaintiff was not entitled to a donation from EA and LB.

B. Determination

According to the plaintiff's assertion of 14 and 0B 10G 20, the plaintiff's testimony of 20G 10 and 19 are difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the 10G 2G 10 shares were transferred to 0,000 won, and 0G 20,000 shares were transferred to 0G 10,000 won, and 0G 10 shares were transferred to 0,000 won. The plaintiff was assigned to 0G 20,000 won, and 0G 10,000 shares were transferred to 0,000 won, and 0,000 won were transferred to 10,000 won, 0,000 won were transferred to 20,000 won, 0,000 won were transferred to 10,000 won, 0,000 won were transferred to 20,00 won.

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.