Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorneys Oh Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seongbuk District Tax Office and two others (Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 17, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap18943 decided September 27, 2013

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the order to revoke is revoked, and each of the plaintiffs' claims pertaining to the revocation are dismissed.

The "the date of disposition" in the attached list 1 that the Defendants issued to the Plaintiffs as of each date listed above shall revoke the respective amount exceeding the respective amount stated in the attached list 1 among the dispositions of imposition of the principal tax and the additional tax, the imposition of the additional tax for unfaithful return among the 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18 as shown in the attached list 1 among the dispositions of imposition of the gift tax as stated in the attached list 1, the imposition of the additional tax for unfaithful return among the 7, the imposition of the additional tax for unfaithful return and the additional tax for unfaithful return among the 8, the imposition of the principal tax and the additional tax for unfaithful return, the imposition of the additional tax for negligent tax in 12, the imposition of the additional tax for negligent tax from among the 13, the imposition of the additional tax for negligent tax from among the 19, and the imposition of the additional tax for negligent tax for negligent tax in 19.

2. The defendants' remaining appeals are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The disposition imposing each gift tax by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked as shown in the separate sheet of attached Table 1.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows, and it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal or addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows.

In ○○ 2, 15 pages 15, “The substantial largest shareholder is Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty).”

Each "original donated property" in the 4th 4th 16th 16th 16th 5th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 4th 4th 4th 20th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 10th 10th

○ 5. 5. 4. 5. 4. 5. 5.

[However, as to the acquisition fund of 300 million won among the 7 shares at issue on January 27, 2005, the gift tax was not imposed and notified because the notified tax did not occur due to the error in the decision of gift tax. Meanwhile, as to each date indicated in the “Disposition Date” column in the attached Table 1 list, the Defendants issued each disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiffs as stated in the “Disposition Date” column in the attached Table 1 list]

○ 7 pages 16 shall be considered as “the value of donated property at the beginning of the political party” and “the value of donated property at the beginning of the political party”.

○ 13. 7. 7. 16. 6. as follows.

3) According to the above bank account statement in the Plaintiff 1’s above bank account, the balance was 5,416,138 won on October 8, 2003. On October 10, 2003, KRW 1,008,418,641 won was deposited under the name of Nonparty 1, and KRW 52,500,000 won was transferred on October 14, 2003, and KRW 50 million was transferred on December 26, 2003. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff 1 acquired KRW 147,50,00 won of the shares of the Sejong Bamoto Tour (including the amount of KRW 825,00,000,000, KRW 514,000,000 and KRW 500,000 received from the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office on June 1, 208, 2008.

4) According to the above bank account accounts of the Plaintiff 2, the amount of KRW 33,100,000 from Samsung Cultural Foundation on November 1, 2002, and KRW 1.437,762,00 from Samsung Ireland on November 29, 2002, the sum of KRW 1.77,072,00 won was deposited as the selling price of stone, and KRW 78,907,50,000 was withdrawn on June 20, 2003, and KRW 78,907,500 was deposited in the name of the travel from the tax base on December 26, 2003, and KRW 74,400,000 was transferred to the three-way travel.

On January 27, 2004, the deposit balance of the above account was 490,178 won. On March 10, 2004, KRW 20,000 on March 10, 2004, KRW 45,000,000 on March 11, 2004 respectively, and deposited KRW 417,50,000 on March 15, 2004, Nonparty 1 deposited KRW 417,50,000 on five occasions from Ssung Port, a major shareholder, and Plaintiff 2 acquired 6 shares, and Plaintiff 2 transferred KRW 78,20,00 on March 25, 2004.

In addition, on December 20, 2004, KRW 300 million was deposited under the name of Nonparty 1’s representative, and on January 27, 2005, KRW 450 million was deposited under Nonparty 1’s name, and KRW 455 million was immediately transferred, and on February 24, 2005, KRW 125 million was transferred.

5) According to the above C&C account accounts of the Plaintiff 3, each of the above accounts was transferred on June 20, 2003, KRW 300 million on June 25, 2003, KRW 400 million on June 25, 2003 (repaid on July 4, 2003). On December 26, 2003, KRW 78,907,50 was deposited in the name of the detailed travel, KRW 58150,00,000 was immediately transferred. On December 20, 2004, KRW 200,000 was deposited in the name of the detailed game gambling business. KRW 300,000 was deposited in the name of Nonparty 1 on January 27, 2005, KRW 300,000 was immediately transferred, and KRW 250,000,00 won was transferred on February 14, 2005.

6) In the course of the investigation of the tax on the world tour, Nonparty 1 stated that the child acquired the shares of the world tour in 2003 and 2005 (the trade name at that time was the Nana Trac Trac Trac Bac Bac Bac Bac Bac Bac Bac Bac Ba), he was recommended to purchase the shares to his children, and that the share price was paid by himself from the account of the child to whom the Mac Bac

7) From October 30, 2003 to October 30, 2003, Nonparty 1 was in office as the representative director of the detailed tour, and at the time of the merger, he was in office in the business group controlled by Nonparty 1.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the first argument

In full view of the facts acknowledged in the final and conclusive criminal judgment as seen earlier, the management of the above accounts in the names of the plaintiffs 1, the flow of the deposits and withdrawals from the above accounts, and the acquisition time of the plaintiffs on each of the issues, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs 1, the plaintiffs 1, the plaintiff 1, the acquisition fund of the 1st share, the 2nd share, the cash acquisition fund of the 514 billion won, the acquisition fund of the 4th share, the 3, the 5, and the 6th share acquisition fund, the acquisition fund of the 3rd shares, the 8th share, the 7, and the 9th share acquisition

○ 22 below, the "value of the original donated property" shall be deemed to be "the value of the existing donated property".

○○ 26 pages 17 "Income Tax Act" shall be regarded as "the Inheritance Tax Act".

○ 27 pages 6, et al. are as follows:

5) Scope of revocation

The method of calculating the amount of legitimate gift tax on the plaintiffs is as follows: ① Articles 41-5(3) and 41-3(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where stocks, etc. are acquired with donated property, it shall be the taxable amount of gift tax to be added to the original taxable amount of gift tax (where stocks, etc. are acquired with donated property, referring to the taxable amount of gift tax on the donated property)", so the initial taxable amount of gift tax and the tax amount shall be calculated by adding the original taxable amount of gift tax to the former taxable amount of gift tax; ② Article 47(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be calculated by adding the tax amount of donated property under this Act as of the date of donation [excluding the original taxable amount of donated property under the provisions of Articles 40(1)2, 41-3, 41-5, and 42(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act after the amendment, it shall be added to the existing taxable amount of gift tax to the total amount of donated property when the previous donated property is added to 10 years or more.

Accordingly, the “political tax amount” in the attached Table 1 list is as stated in the “justifiable tax amount” and the basis for calculation is as shown in the attached Table 2. According to this, the imposition of the additional tax on negligent tax and the calculation of the additional tax on negligent tax in the attached Table 1 list 2, the imposition of the main tax in the attached Table 1 list 2, the imposition of the additional tax on negligent tax, the imposition of the additional tax on negligent tax in the attached Table 7, the imposition of the main tax in the attached Table 8, the imposition of the additional tax on negligent tax in the attached Table 11, the imposition of the main tax and the additional tax on negligent tax in the attached Table 12, the imposition of the main tax in the attached Table 12, the imposition of the additional tax on negligent tax in the attached Table 13, the imposition of the main tax and the additional tax on negligent tax in the attached Form 14, and the imposition of the main tax and the additional tax on negligent tax

2. Conclusion

Among the dispositions of this case, the imposition of principal tax and additional tax for arrears among the dispositions of this case Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18 among the dispositions of this case and the dispositions of imposition of additional tax for arrears among the dispositions of this case No. 1, the imposition of additional tax for arrears among the judgments of the first instance court which partially differ, the imposition of additional tax for arrears among 7, the imposition of additional tax for arrears and additional tax for arrears among 8, the imposition of main tax and additional tax for arrears among 11, the imposition of additional tax for arrears among 12, the imposition of additional tax for arrears among 13, the imposition of additional tax for arrears among 14, the imposition of additional tax for arrears among 14, and the imposition of additional tax for arrears among 19, shall be revoked, and each of them shall be revoked. The part against the Defendants in excess of the above revoked part among the judgments of the court of first instance which partially dismissed, the Plaintiffs' remaining appeal against the Defendants

Judges Ansan-chul (Presiding Justice)