The shares subject to deduction for family business should be determined only by whether they are directly related to business activities.

When determining shares subject to the deduction for family business succession, the shares held without direct connection with the business activity should be determined only by whether they are directly related to the business activity, and it is reasonable to view that the shares in this case are directly related to the business activity.

Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2016Guhap80595 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Inheritance Tax

AAA and 2

@@세무서장

on 21, 2017

on October 25, 2017

1. On September 2, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of imposing inheritance tax of KRW 00 (including additional tax of KRW 000) on the Plaintiffs is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (a) On January 7, 1994, the network BB (hereinafter referred to as “the decedent”) established CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) which is a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and selling kitchen supplies and takes office as the representative director on the same day, and operated CCC as a household business for about 20 years, and died on July 30, 2014.

B. Following the death of the decedent, Plaintiff AA, Plaintiff CCC, and DD inherited 62,100 shares owned by the decedent.

On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiffs assessed the value of the entire inherited property as ○○○○○, and assessed the value of 62,100 shares of CCC as ○○○○○○○, respectively, and reported and paid inheritance tax calculated by applying the inheritance tax deduction for inheritance business pursuant to Article 18(2)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) with respect to 62,100 shares of CCC.

C. After conducting a tax investigation on the above inherited property, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the amount of deduction for family business after excluding the amount of shares in this case from the total value of CCC’s inheritance tax, on September 2, 2015, on the ground that the shares in the EECO. and Ltd. (hereinafter “EE”) (hereinafter “instant shares”) owned by CCC constitute shares, bonds, and financial instruments possessed by the corporation under Article 15(5)2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26069, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”). Accordingly, on September 2, 2015, the Defendant again calculated the amount of deduction for family business after subtracting the amount of shares in this case from the total value of CCC’s inheritance tax, and then notified the Plaintiffs of the determination of ○○○○ (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant notice”).

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 27, 2015.

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the above appeal on November 8, 2016.

E. Meanwhile, following the instant disposition, the Defendant did not constitute a small or medium enterprise as a foreign corporation under Article 5(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) and Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”), and thus, the key share value in the instant case should be excluded from the deductible amount for inheritance, and the Defendant added the grounds for disposition that the Plaintiff CCC did not meet the requirements of Article 15(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as a foreign corporation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 8, and arguments

The purport of the whole

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The EE is part of the production organization of the CCC and is deemed to be a single organization with the CCC. Therefore, the CCC cannot be deemed to hold the instant shares without direct connection with its business activities. Moreover, the 'stocks' under Article 15 (5) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act under the principle of no taxation without law should be deemed to mean only the shares of the corporation except for the shares of a limited partnership company, etc., so the instant shares, which are the shares of the EE, a single limited liability company, do not constitute 'stocks of the above provision. Therefore, the instant shares do not constitute 'stocks' under Article 15 (5) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, it is unlawful to exclude the instant shares from the total value of the CCC’s total assets in calculating the deductible shares for inheritance business.

2) Article 18 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act merely examine whether shares held by a corporation are related to business activities, and do not require the relevant shares to be shares of a small or medium enterprise under Article 5(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Therefore, excluded from the deductible amount for inheritance of a family business solely on the ground that the relevant shares do not constitute shares of a small or medium enterprise

3) Plaintiff CCC worked at the headquarters from April 2012 to June 2013. From June 2013, 2013, Plaintiff CCC was dispatched to EE as employee of CCC.

Therefore, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff CCC continued to have died in CCC from 2 years before the date of commencing the inheritance until the date of commencing the inheritance.

(b) Relevant statutes;

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. shall be as listed.

C. Determination

1) Whether the issue shares in the instant case constitute shares held without direct connection with business activities

(A) the meaning of the shares held without direct connection to business activities;

(1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, or under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu18603, Feb. 22, 1994; 2002Du6781, May 27, 2004).

(2) Article 15(5)2(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that in calculating the amount of deduction for inheritance of a small and medium enterprise in order to ensure that a small and medium enterprise takes care of the outside of the family business and does not receive the benefits of inheritance deduction, the shares held without direct connection with the business activity shall be excluded from the total amount of assets of the corporation.

However, the inheritance tax deduction system for family business is a system introduced to support the smooth succession of small and medium enterprises, which are the basis of economy, and thereby promote economic development and employment maintenance by preventing the waiver of inheritance of the family business carried on by the decedent due to excessive burden of inheritance tax. If the meaning of the business activities under Article 15(5)2(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is excessively narrow and interpreted differently from the original purpose of the inheritance tax deduction system, a small and medium enterprise engaged in business activities through a dependent company, related company, and joint-parent company may not be entitled to the inheritance tax deduction for the sole reason that it carried on business activities through a dependent company, joint-parent company, or joint-parent company.

In addition, under the free market economic order, the establishment of subsidiaries, physical division, and merger and acquisition of other companies to promote the growth of companies through overseas expansion, business diversification, etc. is a universal phenomenon. If the meaning of business activities under Article 15 (5) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is excessively reduced, it may result in hindering the growth of small and medium enterprises through their overseas expansion, business diversification, etc.

(3) Ultimately, the determination of whether the shares held without direct connection with the business activity under Article 15(5)2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are directly related to the business activity is based on the language and text of the shares. The meaning of the business activity shall not be excessively reduced or arbitrarily interpreted or by adding any other requirement

B) Whether the instant issues are directly related to the CCC’s business activities

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) The CCC holds all equity interests in EE.

(B) In around 1994, EE newly built a factory in charge of tobacco, assembly, packing, etc. (hereinafter referred to as a “VE factory”) in Vietnam, and CCC newly built a factory in Busan around 1995 in charge of gold production, ste lease foundation process, etc. (hereinafter referred to as a “subindustrial factory”).

CCC closed the Busan factory on August 1996 due to personnel expenses and rent increase, and sold all machinery and equipment of the Busan factory to EE.

(C) Subsequent to the manufacture of gas supplies, EE is entirely responsible for the manufacture of gas supplies. CCC is responsible for the purchase of major raw materials necessary for the Vietnam plant and the sale of gas supplies produced by EE.

(D) CCC dispatched FF, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○ to EE, an executive officer or employee of the EE in 2015. The said executive officer or employee’s salary was borne by CCC, not EE. Since the establishment of EE, CCC continuously dispatched CCC executives or employees to EE, and had the said executive or employee’s salary fully borne by the EE. Moreover, CCC is responsible for technical education for EE-E employees.

(E) From January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013, CCC’s standard income statements for each business year are as listed below. The sales of CCC consist of products (raw materials, etc.) for EE, export sales, import commission sales, etc. received in the course of relay trade, and all sales are generated in EE-related businesses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 4 through 6, 20 through 26, each statement in Eul's 2 through 7, witness FF's testimony, and purport of whole pleadings

(2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed through the facts recognized as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the instant shares are directly related to the CCC’s business activities.

(a) The business operated by EE is consistent with the main purpose of CCC’s business and the main purpose of CCC.

(B) In order to carry on the business of manufacturing kitchen products, it is essential for a production plant to produce kitchen products. However, CCC does not own any other production plant except the Vietnam plant indirectly owned through EE. Thus, CCC is not able to carry on the business of manufacturing kitchen products, unless Vietnam factory exists.

(C) In the event that a small and medium enterprise newly constructs a factory in Korea, the relevant factory can be recognized as tangible assets, so that it can benefit from family business deduction. However, in the event that a small and medium enterprise intends to build a new factory in a foreign country, there are many cases where it is practically impossible to newly build a factory except for the method of establishing a local subsidiary due to the statutory constraints, etc. of the relevant country. In such a situation, in cases where the equity shares of the local subsidiary established to build a new factory in a foreign country, such as the instant disposition, are deemed as shares owned without direct connection with business activities, it may result in unreasonable results that the small

(D) The sales of the CCC are occurring in all business related to EE. In addition, since CCC reports business losses each year, if there is no dividend income received from EE, it shall be deemed to be net losses each year. Of the assets of EE, the ratio occupied by the issues in this case to 85% in 2013 (=23,550,086,776 ±27,398,702,532 ±100, 26,965,671,629 ± 34,053,684 x 100) and 79% in 2014 (26,965,671,629 ± 26,965,671,629 ± 34,053,034,684 x 100) can not continue business activities without E.

(E) The defendant asserts that, since the parent company and the complete subsidiary are separate corporations, where the parent company hold the shares of the complete subsidiary, the shares should be deemed as having no direct relation to the business activity without conditions, regardless of whether the parent company and the complete subsidiary are engaged in the same business type.

However, as mentioned earlier, the issue of whether the shares held without direct connection with the business activities under Article 15(5)2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are directly related to the business activities shall be determined based on the language and text thereof, and shall not be interpreted arbitrarily in addition to any other requirement. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the shares held by the parent company should be viewed as shares held without any conditions related to the business activities without examining whether the shares held by the parent company in relation to the business activities of the wholly owned subsidiary is an unlawful interpretation contrary to

(F) In addition, the Defendant asserts that since the investment assets are not assets owned by the company for the purpose of investment returns and are not assets owned for business activities, the instant shares should be classified as investment shares under the equity law, which are investment assets, and as long as dividends have been paid from EE, the instant shares should be deemed as having no direct relation to business activities.

However, as mentioned earlier, the shares held without direct connection with the business activities under Article 15(5)2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be determined solely on whether they are directly related to the business activities, and shall not be interpreted in addition to any other requirement, such as whether the shares are classified into a certain account item on the statement of financial position. Furthermore, in the case of the general corporate accounting standards adopted by CCC, (i) if an investing company acquires equity profits within a short-term period of time and actively and frequently conducts purchase and sale as a short-term securities (see, e.g., Chapter 6 main sentence of the ordinary corporate accounting standards), (ii) if an investing company has a significant influence on the invested company by acquiring 20% or more of its voting shares in the invested company, such equity securities shall be considered as “investment shares subject to the Act” (see, e.g., Chapter 8 main sentence of the ordinary corporate accounting standards, 8.3 through 5, 8.36).

③ Equity securities, which are not classified as short-term trading securities or shares subject to the equity law, should be classified into “salable securities” (see, e.g., the proviso to Chapter VI of the General Corporate Accounting Standards). Therefore, where an investment company that has adopted the general corporate accounting standards acquires equity securities of an invested company with a view to earning investment profits, such as profit margin, the equity securities should be classified into short-term trading securities or shares available for sale. On the other hand, where an investment company that has adopted the general corporate accounting standards acquires 20% or more of the voting shares of the invested company for business purposes related to its business activities, such as expanding its business or attempting its new business activities, the equity securities should be classified as shares subject to the equity law. Therefore, equity securities classified as short-term trading securities or shares subject to the equity law, which are not shares available for sale, are likely to have a direct relation to

In addition, the investment company can receive dividends from the invested company unless there is a resolution to pay dividends from the invested company, regardless of whether the invested company holds the shares of the invested company directly related to its business activities.4) Therefore, whether the invested company has received dividends from the invested company can not be the standard for determining whether the invested company holds the shares of the invested company directly related to its business activities.

Ultimately, the defendant's above assertion cannot be seen as a mother or acceptable.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, it is not necessary to further examine whether the equity shares of one limited liability company fall under the "stocks" under Article 15 (5) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it does not constitute the shares held without direct connection with business activities under Article 15 (5) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

2) Article 18(2)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act limits the scope of family business to "small and medium enterprises prescribed by Presidential Decree" if shares held by a small and medium enterprise do not constitute shares of a small and medium enterprise under Article 5(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 15(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "small and medium enterprises prescribed by Presidential Decree" means small and medium enterprises under Article 5(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as of the end of the taxable year immediately preceding the taxable year in which the commencement date of inheritance falls.

However, the above limitation on the scope of family business is limited to the family business itself, which is subject to the deduction for family business succession, and it is not limited to the shares held by the small and medium enterprise, which is the family business.

Furthermore, even in the relevant statutes, there is no provision that shares held by a family business entity should be excluded from the amount of deduction for inheritance of a family business in cases where the shares held by a small and medium business entity do not constitute shares of a small and medium business entity under Article 5(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Therefore, construing that the shares held by a family business entity should be excluded from the amount of deduction for inheritance of a family business in cases where the shares held by a small and medium business entity do not constitute shares of a small and medium business entity

3) Whether Plaintiff CCC continued to engage in CCC from two years before the commencement date of the inheritance until the commencement date of the inheritance

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff sent e-mail with the following content to the trading entity of the CCC:

(2) The Plaintiff, a staff member of the CCC, worked in the CCC from April 2012 to promote product development and publicity, and the e-mail translation date sent to a foreign Buyer was also the head of the development department. At the time, the Plaintiff CCC was the head of the development department. The Plaintiff CCC’s salary was 2.5 million won when the Plaintiff CCC was employed as the head of the development department, but only the basic cost was paid for the first few months. The Plaintiff CCC was interested in the development of new products and promotional activities. around April 2012, the Plaintiff CCC took part in the Dorororororo warehouse event and sold products directly to the consumers and was working in the calculation unit. The representative of the products developed and developed by the Plaintiff CCC was the U.S. product sold through the ○ Home shopping broadcast around 2012. At the time, the Plaintiff CCC prepared a consumer participation in the process of the product, the product product’s product’s product’s product’s product’s product’s product’s product’s product’s product, and product price determination.

(3) A witness FF, an executive officer of the CCC, testified to the effect that “Plaintiff CCC had worked as the head office of development from July 2012 to the CCC head office.”

(4) Around July 2012 through August 8, 2012, ○○○, an employee of ○○○○○, a company, was an employee of ○ Home shopping (hereinafter referred to as “broadcasting channel name”). Plaintiff CCC and FF were very active in the Home shopping broadcasting.

On August 2012, 2012, a number of products were proposed by SCC, and among which, the products with low scam were items for item, the self- brand of CCC. At a hosting place to take photographs carried out in the home shopping broadcast, Plaintiff CCC and FF were met. Around November 2012, Plaintiff CCC sent a first broadcast, and Plaintiff CCC visited scCC employees, with props, to make a broadcast preparation. At the time, Plaintiff CCC visited with CCC employees, and prepared a statement to the effect that “one scambling memory, one of the scambling memory,” the Plaintiff CCC employees, together with CCC employees.

(5) From June 2013, 2013, MUA, an employee affiliated with the EE, worked as a honest in the EE. A written statement to the effect that Plaintiff CCC’s work division includes new products development, company’s financial status review, drum and review on the functional aspect of existing products, and employment of general employees.

(6) Leedo, a member of the trading company of CCC, has attended meetings held in EE in the second half of 2013 and meetings held in the first half of 2014 and Plaintiff CCC in the first half of 2014. At the time, Plaintiff CCC prepared a statement to the effect that “At the time, Plaintiff CCC explained matters concerning creative English and Japanese language product development and projects.”

(7) Plaintiff CCC left Vietnam on June 10, 2013 and resided mainly in Vietnam before entering the Republic of Korea on June 1, 2014. However, Plaintiff CCC resided in the United States for childbirth from July 26, 2013 to November 11, 2013.

(8) On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff CCC was appointed as the auditor of CCC.

(9) The CCC paid wages to Plaintiff CCC in 2012 and 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap, 8, 9, 11, 13 through 18, 28 through 31, 34, 35

Nos. 9 and 10, each entry of evidence Nos. 9 and 10, testimony of FF of the witness, the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

In light of the records, evidence Nos. 9, 14, 15, and evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 9: (1) on March 15, 2013, Plaintiff CCC reported tax withholding on wage and salary income from September 1, 2012 to CCC; (2) on August 29, 2014, the decedent’s death, the decedent reported tax withholding; (3) on July 1, 2012, rather than on September 1, 2012; and (4) on March 11, 2014, Plaintiff CCC reported tax withholding on wage and salary income to the CCC; (4) on March 31, 2014, Plaintiff CCC retired from office as the 31st 201.3rd 201.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged under the above A and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff CCC continued to have engaged in CCC continuously from two years before the commencement date of inheritance until the commencement date of inheritance.

(1) On June 21, 2012, the two years prior to the death of the decedent, the e-mail sent by the Plaintiff CCC to the trading company of the CCC stated that the Plaintiff CCC had worked at night to resolve the strike problem of the employees of the Vietnam plant. In addition, around May 2012, the e-mail contains the content that the Plaintiff CCC had worked at night in order to resolve the strike problem of the employees of the Vietnam plant. Moreover, around May 2012, the product price of the transaction company, the increase in personnel expenses of the employees of the EE, and the production cost of the EE-production products, and the content that could be expressed should be sufficiently understood but can be expressed.

(2) Although FF and Kim Jong-hwa, an executive officer or employee of the CCC, are somewhat different in terms of the working commencement date of Plaintiff CCC, Plaintiff CCC makes a statement at the latest, it is consistent with that Plaintiff CCC was working for the head of the Development Committee around July 2012.

(3) Around July 2012 to August 8, 2012, Plaintiff CCC was first made with respect to home shopping broadcasting of CCC products, not only executives and employees belonging to CCC but also employees belonging to Korea Home shopping.

(4) Around June 2013, 2013, MUA, an employee affiliated with the EE, states that Plaintiff CCC had worked as a suspended employee in EE, and that Plaintiff CCC had been present at a meeting held in EE in the latter part of 2013 and a meeting held in the first half of 2014 and a meeting held in ECC in the first half of 2014.

(5) Article 15 (4) 2 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where a successor is unable to engage in a family business due to any reason under Article 15 (6) 2 (c), the period shall be deemed the period during which he is engaged in the family business." Paragraph (6) 2 (c) of the same Article provides that "where the successor falls under extenuating circumstances prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, such as performance of the duty of military service under the Act and medical treatment for illness, etc.," and the main sentence of Article 6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 557, Mar. 21, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "any inevitable reason prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance means

Meanwhile, Article 74 (1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that "an employer shall grant a pregnant woman a 90-day leave before and after her childbirth, before and after her childbirth," and Article 60 (6) 2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "the period during which a woman in pregnancy takes a leave under the provisions of Article 74 (1) shall be deemed to have arrived at work," and Article 19 (3) of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act provides that "the employer shall not dismiss or take other unfavorable measures on account of childcare leave."

Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, childcare leave and its objection shall be deemed as an inevitable reason under Article 15(6)2(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. As such, Plaintiff CCC’s residing in the United States for childbirth from July 26, 2013 to November 11, 2013 should be included in the period of business death under Article 15(4)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(6) As seen earlier, the CCC holds the entire shares of the EE and operates a main organization manufacturing business, which is the business purpose of the CCC, via EE. Furthermore, CCC has dispatched its employees to EE and fully bears its benefits. As such, the period for which the Plaintiff CCC works as a member of CCC, should be included in the ACC’s business type.

(7) On September 1, 2012, the first Plaintiff CCC reported withholding tax on wage and salary income. However, on August 29, 2014, the date of actual work of Plaintiff CCC was reported to the effect that Plaintiff CCC worked in CCC from September 1, 2012, not on September 1, 2012, but on July 1, 2012. However, since CCC did not pay wages to Plaintiff CCC under the pretext of the predecessor’s rehabilitation period, it appears that CCC reported withholding tax on wage and salary income as of the date the CCC started to receive wage, and the Plaintiffs were likely to have reported differently as above, resulting in concerns that the Plaintiffs would not receive any benefit for family business inheritance. In light of the fact that the revised report was filed, it cannot be readily concluded that Plaintiff CCC’s actual work date was the date of initial report and September 1, 2012.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the instant shares do not constitute shares owned without direct connection with business activities under Article 15(5)2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and since the Plaintiff CCC continued to engage in CCC from 2 years before the date of commencing the inheritance until the date of commencing the inheritance, the inheritance tax deduction under Article 18(2)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on all of the 62,100 shares, including the shares in the instant dispute, should be made. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on a different premise, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.