Since the defendant's evaluation of 53 households in the apartment of this case is legitimate, the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.

A seller is responsible for the sales contract and pays the sales commission to the sales specialist in the sale of the instant apartment in a form to set the sales commission. As such, the Defendant’s evaluation of the price per household of the instant apartment in assessing the price per share of the instant shares is lawful.

Article 39 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Daejeon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-104360 ( August 24, 2018)

The value of the 53 household units for three months before or after the evaluation base date ( June 5, 2012).

The 20 households transacted shall be the actual transaction amount, and the value of the remaining 33 households shall be 84 million won (the details of the trade);

The lowest amount of the transaction value stated in the certified copy of the register of the 11st household confirmed. AA shall be November 25, 2013.

The sales price of 22 households sold en bloc to land construction shall be deemed as not verifiable, and supplementary balance shall be deemed as follows.

The value per stock before the capital increase shall be 14,38 won, and one stock after the capital increase by applying a method of

The value of the EE (Plaintiff FF) which is a shareholder of AA, shall be assessed as KRW 9,508.

- 3-

FF and 1 other

DD Omissions made to the public any benefit derived from the allocation of forfeited shares (and forfeited shares) by the public.

The Defendants notified the Defendants of taxation data on the premise that the taxation data was considered to have been.

C. According to the notification of taxation data of the Central and Medium Regional Tax Office, the head of Dongjak Tax Office on April 19, 2016 Plaintiff

With respect to FF, the Director of the National Tax Office of Boanan on 2016, with respect to Plaintiff DD, the following notified tax amounts:

The gift tax imposition (hereinafter referred to as the "each disposition of this case") was made.

D. The Plaintiffs filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 26, 2016 and on October 27, 2016.

B. On May 10, 2017, the decision of dismissal was made.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, and whole pleading

chapter 6

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

AA, while selling the apartment of this case, has divided all the households excluding the sale of land construction.

sale to the CCC, CCC, GG, FF, and GG, both specialized operators, in the amount of KRW 54 million per household.

After that, the seller had not sold the apartment of this case and then sold the apartment of this case at least 84 million won while selling the apartment of this case without registration.

As such, in assessing the value per share of the AA’s shares, the apartment of this case is sold.

The price per household shall be 54 million won, and the defendant shall be 53 households of the apartment of this case.

- 4-

It is illegal to impose gift tax by appropriating 84 million won per unit.

2) The defendant's assertion

AAA does not sell the apartment of this case to the sales specialist, but the sales specialist.

A sales contract shall be prepared in the form of a sales contract to commission a sales agency to a business operator for sale, and to determine a sales commission.

The Defendant merely pays the sales agency fees to the sales agency and the sales agency;

The value per household of the apartment of this case shall be 84 million won in the appraisal of the value per stock of the stocks of this case.

Evaluation is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proof on the facts of taxation requirements is borne.

There is a taxation authority, but the fact of taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process is presumed.

, if the facts revealed, the other party becomes eligible for the application of the rule of experience.

Unless it proves that the taxation disposition does not meet the taxation requirements, the taxation disposition in question is unlawful.

A disposition cannot be readily concluded as a disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6568, Sept. 24, 2009).

2) Gamba, the above facts of recognition, Gap evidence 3, 10, 19, Eul evidence 2 to 7, the CCC

the following facts and circumstances that may be recognized by adding a partial testimony and the entire purport of the pleading:

Comprehensively taking account of the tax authority’s value per household of the apartment of this case as of the base date of appraisal 8,400

Since it seems that only won has been proven to a considerable extent, the value per household is different from this.

The plaintiffs who are liable to pay taxes must prove that they are not liable to pay taxes. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone

It is insufficient to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is accepted.

- 5-

subsection (1) of this section.

A) Of the instant apartments, 20 households whose actual transaction value was confirmed are 73.5 million won at KRW 8,700.

86,175,00 won, the average transaction value per household was traded between the members, and she also reaches 86,175,000 won.

If the party asserts that the day was sold to the sales specialist in lots in the amount of 54 million won, the day shall not be less than

In the event that the registration of ownership transfer is not made in the name of the contractor, the transfer to the buyer is immediately made.

The registration is completed, and the transaction price on the register is at least 84 million won. In addition, it is stated that it is at least 84 million won.

the sale price of 22 households sold to land construction that is not a sales specialist; and

There is no objective data.

(B) was made up of 54 million won between AA and sales specialist.

BB in the course of processing taxation data for a contract of movable property, however, there is a contract of movable property;

The sales contract prepared with AA is prepared in a formal manner to set sales commission fees.

was stated.

C) Shares other than AA in a civil action instituted by the buyer against AA.

Company AAA Vietnam (hereinafter referred to as "AAAA Vietnam") is a party to a sales contract, and AA.

There was a fact that the representation right has been granted to AAbes, and that there was no fact that the representation right has been granted to it;

Unlike the allegations made by the AA that no knowledge of AA AA Vietnam in each such civil action is known, Switzerland;

A witnessCC, which has established a Malist Scast, has purchased 238 units of the apartment of this case in this Court.

When the sales contract between the CCC and the AAA is terminated when the sales contract is concluded upon the request of the CCC.

I stated that he/she has made a direct contract by finding AA.

D) lack of evidence to deem that the sales specialist has deposited the full amount of the sales price, and the first time,

In the case of CCC which has prepared a contract, the sales amount up to a million won shall be paid in several times each month.

- - Other

AA, not a sales specialist, to pay taxes, etc. for each year;

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that it seems to have been processed, each of the AA and the sales specialist.

It is difficult to regard each contract as ordinary trading.

(e) AA has withheld the business income of sales professionals such as BB, etc., and this company

The status of the AAA’s withholding in 2012, in which the purchase and sale of the apartment was mainly conducted, shall be sold in lots.

AAA has increased rapidly in comparison with the preceding year in the amount of business income paid to professional business operators.

It appears that the sales agency fee has been paid to the doorer (Witness CCC).

The witnessCC testified that there was no receipt of the AA lawsuit, but the CCC is different from BB, etc.

Since he was the representative director of AAAB, not in the territory of the Republic of Korea, he cannot be seen as the same status as the witness.

CCC’s testimony as seen above is different from facts recognized in the relevant civil procedure.

In light of the foregoing, the testimony of the CCC alone by the witness may be sold to all sales experts.

It is insufficient to recognize that a final sale was made without payment of completion.

G) The Plaintiffs: (a) the instant apartment complex assessed by AA’s commission to HH appraisal corporation;

the value of this case is KRW 54 million per household, and at the time of appraisal and assessment in the related civil procedure, the Ampha of this case

in this respect the value of Tart has been appraised from 69,200,000 to 76,800,000 won per household.

Do also asserted that the assessment of the value of the apartment of this case was unlawful, but the AA’s HH

The evaluation point at the time of requesting a fixed-evaluation corporation shall be April 1, 2010, and the evaluation point at the time of the relevant civil procedure.

The evaluation period under Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is at least September 201.

the market price of the apartment in this case in accordance with the example of transaction transaction

Thus, this case’s disposition cannot be deemed unlawful solely with the above materials.

3. Conclusion

- - Other

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

The Director of the National Tax Service

on 18, 2018

on January 24, 2018

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 1, 2004, the plaintiffs run apartment sales business in the area No. 881-16, Osan-dong, Osan-si, 881-16.

AA as a shareholder of a corporation AA (hereinafter referred to as "AA"), a non-permanent corporation, and

Plaintiff FF’s KRW 5,00 per share with secondary capital increase issued on June 5, 2012 80,000 per share, and Plaintiff

DD acquired 40,000 shares.

(b) The Central Regional Tax Office shall provide for changes in the shares of AA from October 1, 2015 to December 21, 2015.

I conducted the company and held by AA, and 27-2, Dong-dong, Da-dong, Da-dong, 27-2, hereinafter referred to as 'A-do