To seek revocation of a rejection of a request for correction and other disposition of imposition is subject to dismissal.

The existence of an administrative disposition, which is the object of a lawsuit in an administrative litigation, is a lawful requirement for the lawsuit, and so long as there is no disposition seeking revocation, the lawsuit shall be dismissed by illegality.

Disposition of revocation of imposition of gift tax, etc. by Cheongju District Court 2015Guhap10600

leap** Foreign1

Head of Cheongju Tax Office

oly 2015.13

2015.08.27

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The part of the Defendant’s disposition of refusal of KRW 2,170,150 for transfer income tax of KRW 15,863,290 for Plaintiff 00 and securities transaction tax of KRW 15,863,290 for transfer income tax of KRW 821,813,780 for gift tax of KRW 821,813,93,930 for the Defendant’s disposition of refusal of correction of KRW 818,883,930 for the Plaintiff 00 for

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 19, 2009, the Plaintiffs drafted a share acquisition agreement with the transferor as to 00 shares issued by 00 comprehensive architectural firms (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) 5,454 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the shares of this case”) holding by Plaintiff 00, Plaintiff 100, Plaintiff 5,000, and Plaintiff 5,000,000 transfer price. Around that time, the change of the shareholder’s name on the shareholder registry of the shares of this case was made from 00 to 100.

B. Thereafter, on June 30, 2009, Plaintiff Jeong Jong-ok reported and paid KRW 3,956,044 of the gift tax on KRW 55,00,000 in total and KRW 3,956,044 in total and KRW 58,956,044 in exchange for the transfer price of the instant shares donated by Plaintiff Jong-ok, the father of Plaintiff 00, and KRW 505,000 in relation to the instant shares transaction, respectively, to the Defendant on September 16, 2009.

C. On October 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff 00 actually paid KRW 70,00,000 to the Plaintiff le0 with the purchase price of the instant shares. On the other hand, on December 3, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of imposition of capital gains tax to the Plaintiff 81,839,300,000 won, which is the market price of the instant shares (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); Article 63(1)1(c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; Article 54(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641, Jul. 27, 2009); Article 54(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21641, Dec. 3, 201200>

D. On December 27, 2012, Plaintiff 00 filed a lawsuit (Cheongju District Court 2012Gahap7**; hereinafter “instant civil lawsuit”) claiming that the acquisition of the instant shares by transfer against Nonparty Company and Plaintiff 100 is null and void, and that the transfer of the instant shares by transfer is also invalidated, and the said court accepted Plaintiff 100’s claim on May 15, 2013, and sentenced Plaintiff 00 to the judgment to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares on the premise that the transfer of the instant shares by transfer is null and void (hereinafter “instant civil judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive on June 6, 2013 because the Plaintiffs did not appeal.

E. On the grounds of the instant civil judgment on July 12, 2013, pursuant to Article 45-2(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for correction of each amount of tax declared and paid by the Plaintiffs, as stated in the same paragraph. On August 22, 2013, the Defendant issued a rejection disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant rejection disposition”) on the grounds that “each claim for correction against the Plaintiffs was based on civil procedure between the parties after the legitimate establishment of the tax claim, and the sale and purchase of the instant shares is valid according to various evidentiary documents.”

F. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on November 21, 2013, but each of the above claims was dismissed on January 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Whether the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff 00 is lawful

1) Of the Defendant’s refusal disposition, Plaintiff 00 sought revocation of the disposition of correction of KRW 2,170,150 and securities transaction tax KRW 15,863,290 as of August 22, 2013 and KRW 15,863,290 as of August 22, 2013, the Defendant filed a claim for correction of KRW 2,170 and KRW 15,863,290 with respect to the disposition of correction of KRW 2,170 and KRW 15,863,290 as of August 22, 2013. The Defendant’s claim for correction against Plaintiff 00 constitutes the portion of the tax amount voluntarily declared and paid. The Defendant filed a claim for correction of KRW 2,170,150 and KRW 15,863,290 with respect to the disposition of correction of KRW 2,150 and KRW 15,863,290 as of the instant refusal disposition.

2) On the other hand, the existence of an administrative disposition, which is the object of a lawsuit in an administrative litigation, is a lawful requirement of the lawsuit, and the lawsuit is dismissed as long as the plaintiff's claim for revocation does not exist. However, according to each of the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 4, the written request for correction submitted by the plaintiff 00 to the defendant on July 12, 2013 only includes a statement that the plaintiff 500 claims correction of the reported amount of KRW 505,000, and there is no explicit statement that it can be deemed that the plaintiff 00 seeks correction of the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax and securities transaction tax of this case. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff 00's claim for correction against the plaintiff 0 is against the capital gains tax of this case and securities transaction tax of this case merely on the ground that the plaintiff 00's claim for correction was revoked by a lawsuit. Thus, the part of the defendant's disposition of refusal against the plaintiff 00 cannot be considered as a disposition of revocation of the capital gains tax of this case.

3) Therefore, since the existence of the disposition seeking revocation of the instant lawsuit by Plaintiff 00 cannot be recognized, it is unlawful.

B. Whether the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff 100 is lawful

1) Of the Defendant’s refusal disposition of this case, the part corresponding to KRW 818,883,930 among the disposition of correction of KRW 821,813,780 on August 22, 2013 is revoked. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s correction claim of KRW 818,883,930 on the part of the Plaintiff’s voluntary return and payment amount. The Defendant’s correction claim of KRW 00 on the disposition of imposition of the gift tax of this case against Plaintiff 100 is against the part of the Plaintiff’s voluntary return and payment amount. The Defendant’s correction claim of KRW 818,883,930 on the part of the Plaintiff 100 was not filed with the Tax Tribunal, and even if this part of the lawsuit is considered to be a revocation disposition of the disposition of imposition of the gift tax of this case, even if it is considered to be a substantial revocation disposition of the gift tax of this case, Plaintiff

2) On the other hand, the existence of an administrative disposition, which is the object of a lawsuit in an administrative litigation, shall be dismissed in a lawful and lawful manner. According to the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 5 of the above No. 5 of the above No. 5 of the above case, the plaintiff 100 filed a request for correction on July 12, 2013 with the defendant for correction of the reported amount of his original gift tax (in relation to the transaction of shares in this case, the plaintiff 5,000 father * who is his father * the amount of the transfer price of shares donated from the non-party 5,956,04 won in total 3,956,044 won in total, which is 58,956,04 won in total and 3,956,044 won in the gift tax in this case, there is no express statement that the plaintiff 100 seeks correction of the disposition of correction against the plaintiff 1's imposition of the gift tax in this case.

3) Therefore, the instant lawsuit by Plaintiff 100 cannot be acknowledged as the existence of the disposition seeking revocation by Plaintiff 100, and is thus unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits are unlawful and dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.