Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap32980 (2012.04.06)

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010-0259 ( October 30, 2011)

It is reasonable to deduct special benefits and reflect the net profit and loss value on the basis of the normal ordinary profit only.

It is reasonable to reflect the net value of profit and loss and the net asset value together with the net asset value in the method of calculating the market value of unlisted stocks, except in exceptional cases prescribed by the net asset value only to be assessed by the market value of unlisted stocks, with the intention of the legislators, and to reflect the weighted average value of net profit and loss for the last three years based solely on the normal ordinary ordinary profit.

2012Nu1268 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

SP et al.

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office and two others

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap32980 decided April 6, 2012

November 29, 2012

December 27, 2012

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Defendant Samsung director of the tax office on August 2, 2010

(1) The part of the disposition imposing corporate tax of 000 won for the business year of 2007 against the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. exceeds 00 won

(2) The portion exceeding KRW 000 of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the year 2007, imposed on Plaintiff A in excess of KRW 000 of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the year 2007, and the portion exceeding KRW 000 of securities transaction tax

(3) The portion exceeding KRW 000 of the imposition disposition of KRW 000 of the gift tax for the year 2007, imposed on Plaintiff branchB, and the portion exceeding KRW 000 of the imposition disposition of KRW 000 of the gift tax;

(4) The portion exceeding KRW 000, among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 000 on Plaintiff SongCC in 2007, shall be revoked, respectively.

B. On August 2, 2010, the part that exceeds KRW 000 of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 belonging to the year 2007 against Plaintiff KimD and the part that exceeds KRW 000 of the imposition disposition of KRW 000 of securities transaction tax shall be revoked.

C. On August 2, 2010, the part that exceeds KRW 000 of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the transfer income tax of KRW 000 on August 2, 201 and the part that exceeds KRW 000 of the imposition disposition of securities transaction tax of KRW 00 shall be revoked.

D. The remainder of the claim against the defendant Samsung director of Samsung Tax Office by the plaintiff Kim Dong-dong Tax Office and the remainder of the claim against the defendant Kim Dong-dong Tax Office by the plaintiff Kim Dong-dong Tax Office and the remainder of the claim against the defendant Kim Dong-cheon Tax Office by the plaintiff Kim Dong-dong Tax Office are all dismissed.

2. Five minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

A. On August 2, 2010, the head of Samsung Tax Office revoked each imposition of KRW 000, the corporate tax for the business year of 2007 against Plaintiff Samsung District Co., Ltd., and KRW 000 and securities transaction tax for the transfer income for the business year of 2007 against Plaintiff Samsung District Co., Ltd.; ② KRW 000 and gift tax for the gift tax for the year of 2007, ③ KRW 000 and KRW 000 for the gift tax for the gift tax for the year of 2007 against Plaintiff Samsung District Co., Ltd.

B. On August 2, 2010, the head of the Dongdae District Tax Office’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 and securities transaction tax of KRW 000 on August 2, 201 shall be revoked in entirety.

C. On August 2, 2010, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over Defendant North Korea’s tax office’s imposition of KRW 000 and securities transaction tax of KRW 000 shall be revoked in all.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

From 1. to 2. The reasoning of the judgment of this court, the following facts are as follows: (a) whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate; (b) the plaintiffs' assertion, and (b) up to 3. related statutes; (c) the "O development of a stock company" in paragraph 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "O development corporation"; and (ii) the "list of imposition disposition" attached to subparagraph 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Class 2 to 6.3). Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The part on the assertion that the transaction value per stock of the instant unlisted stocks is KRW 000 per market price

(1) Relevant legal principles

In the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, the price of the stocks shall be assessed on the basis of the market value, and the price of the stocks shall not be assessed on the basis of supplementary evaluation methods as stipulated by the relevant provisions of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), which applies to each disposition of this case. However, since the market value means the objective exchange price formed through a general and normal transaction, in order to recognize such transaction example as the market value, the circumstances should be acknowledged that the transaction in question reflects the objective exchange value at the time of the transaction in a general and normal manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26988, Apr. 26, 2012). In addition, in determining whether the objective exchange value of unlisted stocks is deemed to have been properly reflected or not, it shall be determined on the basis of the overall net asset value of the transaction, its relation and net asset value between the parties.

(2) Whether the plaintiffs' example of transaction constitutes "market price" or not.

(A) In doing so, the Plaintiffs asserts that the market price of the non-listed shares (the total amount of 67,945 shares of OO development under each transaction of this case) of this case is KRW 000 per share, on the ground that the transfer of O-development shares between the "G" and the "Y" and the "JJ" to KRW 000 per share does not have any economic motive to distribute profits to the other party, and each party is based on choice to maximize its profits, and thus, the market price of the non-listed shares (the total amount of 67,945 shares of O-development shares under each transaction of this case) of this case

(B) According to the respective entry and pleadings of No. 2, No. 4, 6, and 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (if there are numbers omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply), i.e., the following circumstances, which were 0: (1) the time when the tax investigation was conducted with respect to the circumstances under which 0G would acquire 5,880 shares, which are non-listed shares from Gangwon F, ; (2) it is difficult to conclude that 0G would acquire 60 shares, even if the above loans were not repaid on April 203, 200; and (3) it is difficult to conclude that 6,880 shares, which were purchased by the Plaintiffs at the time of their respective trading of the above shares, were no more than 00 shares at the time of their respective trading and acquisition of 6,00 shares at the time of their respective trading and acquisition of the shares (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, supra).

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, under the premise that there is a business example example of 000 per share in which objective exchange values are properly reflected with respect to the unlisted stocks of this case, the Defendants’ assertion that each disposition of this case was unlawful by applying the supplementary evaluation method stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, by deeming that it is difficult to calculate the market price of the unlisted stocks of this case without

B. The part on the assertion that the supplementary assessment method applied to each disposition of the instant case is unlawful

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 17-3(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 603, Feb. 2, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that the amount of net profit and loss for the preceding three years cannot be calculated or the amount of net profit and loss for the preceding three years is abnormal and thus it would be unreasonable to calculate the amount of net profit and loss per share on the basis of such circumstances. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the amount of net profit and loss per share, which is the value under Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act for the preceding three years, cannot be calculated on the basis of the "average average amount of net profit and loss per share, which is the value under Article 56(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act" or by failing to meet the requirements under Article 56(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is unreasonable.

(2) Determination

(A) Articles 60 and 63(1)1(c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provide that the value per share of unlisted stocks shall be calculated based on the current market price as of the date of donation, etc., which is the base date for appraisal, and, in cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price, the net value per share (the weighted average amount of net profits and losses for the last three years per share ± the rate determined and publicly notified by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service taking into account the yield on distribution of corporate bonds with the maturity of three years elapsed ± the net asset value per share (the total value of issued stocks of the pertinent corporation) and the net asset value per share (the total value of issued stocks of the relevant corporation) shall be calculated on the weighted average rate of 3 to 2

In addition, Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the weighted average amount of net profit and loss per share for the preceding three years shall be the value under subparagraph 1, i.e., [(x3) of the net profit and loss per share for the business year before the base date of appraisal 1 year before the base date of appraisal x 2) + (x2) of the net profit and loss per share for the business year before the base date of appraisal 2 years before the base date of appraisal x 1) calculated by the formula of X 1/61. It shall be the value calculated by the formula of X 1/61; where the corporation concerned is less than 3 years after the commencement of its business or where it is unreasonable to calculate the value of net profit and loss per share for the latest three years by a temporary event, the weighted average amount of profit and loss per share calculated by an institution specialized in credit assessment or accounting corporation for the latest three years shall be the same as the average amount of profit and loss per share for the latest three years under subparagraph 2, and the same as the average average average amount of profit and loss per share within three years.

"The net value of future non-listed stocks is calculated by the method of assessing the current value of the stocks after estimating the future profit of 00 won. However, Articles 54 (1) and 56 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provide that, in principle, the net value of the preceding three years shall be calculated by discounting the weighted average profit of 00 won per share with the rate of 0 years reflecting the rate of distribution of corporate bonds with the past performance of 00 years. As such, substitution of future profit with the past performance of 00 units is premised on the fact that the past performance of 00 units of profit and loss rate of 00 units of profit and loss is high, and if such special profit and loss continues to occur in the particular business year of the company which issued non-listed stocks, the weighted average profit and loss for the preceding three years from 00 won to 000 units of profit and loss per 200 units of profit and loss per each of the above 0th 0th 20th 3 years 00th 20th o 20 years of business year.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant provisions such as the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the weighted average rate of the non-listed stocks and the ordinary profits for the last three years is stipulated in Article 17-3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Thus, in calculating the market price of the non-listed stocks of this case as a supplementary method of assessment, it is reasonable to view that in principle, the "amount weighted average of the net profits and losses for the last three years" under Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be the amount calculated by the formula under Article 5

"(C) As to this, the defendants asserted that "The average amount of net profit and loss of the non-listed stocks of this case for the last three years" of Article 56 (1) 2-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should not be calculated by the "average amount of net profit and loss of the non-listed stocks of this case for the last three years", and that "However, as seen above, the average amount of net profit and loss of the non-listed stocks of this case for the last three years of the ordinary profit ofO exceeds 50% of the average amount of the ordinary profit of this case for the last three years of the ordinary profit of this case, thereby falling under Article 17-3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and cannot be deemed to be the value calculated by the formula under Article 56 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act for the last three years of the non-listed stocks of this case, the defendants' assertion that the above average amount of net profit and loss of this case should not be reported again by the above 160.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the dispositions of this case based on the calculation of the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for the last three years per share of the non-listed stocks of this case under Article 56 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is unlawful.

3. Determination as to the conjunctive assertion added by the Defendants to the appellate brief

A. As to the first preliminary argument

(1) The defendants' assertion

If the market value per share cannot be assessed based on the supplementary assessment method under Articles 56(1) and 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act with respect to the instant unlisted stocks, the assessment of the amount equivalent to the market value based on the net asset value ofO development constitutes an objective and reasonable calculation method. As such, by applying Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act mutatis mutandis, KRW 00 of the net asset value of OO development is deemed to be lawful within the scope of calculating each tax amount to be imposed on the Plaintiffs based on the amount calculated as the amount equivalent to the market value per share of the instant unlisted stocks, which is calculated based on the amount calculated by dividing the net asset value of OO development by 245,000 shares as of the base date of appraisal (as of July 27, 2007) by 245,00

(2) Determination

(A) Since the subject matter of a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition is objective existence of legitimate tax amount, the tax authority may submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base and tax amount recognized in the relevant disposition, or add and change the reasons to the extent that the unity of the disposition is maintained. Thus, it can be deemed that adding and changing the grounds for disposition under the items of corporate tax, gift tax, transfer income tax and securities transaction tax which are integrated by the Plaintiff, as alleged above, to the extent that the unity of the disposition is recognized, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du4873, Aug. 24, 2001);

(B) Furthermore, in cases where the value per share of unlisted stocks cannot be evaluated as an weighted average amount of net profit and loss value and net asset value based on the value under Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act or subparagraph 2 of the same Article, Article 65(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the method of evaluation under Articles 65(1) and 60 through 64 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the evaluation of the property whose method of evaluation is not provided for under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and in cases where the value cannot be assessed even according to the supplementary method of evaluation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it shall be based on an objective and reasonable method of evaluation in accordance with the supplementary method of evaluation under Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides that only the net asset value shall be assessed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du26988, 201Du9140).

(C) However, considering the following circumstances in light of the project period and financial status of OO development, and the continuation of its business, among the supplementary assessment methods regarding unlisted stocks prepared by the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the net asset value method claimed by the Defendants, as seen in Article 3-B(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is compared with the mixed method based only on the remaining ordinary profits after deducting 000 won of the above special profits of OO development, it is difficult to view the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner as to the value per share of the non-listed stocks of this case.

① The net asset value method under Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is a method of assessing the stocks of the relevant corporation based on the net asset value of the relevant corporation’s assets as of the base date of appraisal, as stipulated under each subparagraph of Article 54(4) of the same Act, and it is difficult to continue to conduct the business, such as the liquidation procedure for the relevant corporation, or the corporation which has suspended, discontinued, discontinued, or deficits, and is likely to be dissolved in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du2157, Dec. 11, 1998). The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to find that O development is difficult to continue the relevant business in the near future as of July 27, 2007, which is the base date of appraisal of the instant case.

② As a matter of principle, the supplementary assessment method on the market price of unlisted stocks as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the weight of the net asset value method for a corporation which may not continue its business in the near future on the basis of past performance on the premise that the corporation continues to operate its business, shall be applied to the mixed method applying the weight of the net asset value method for a corporation which is likely to not continue its business in the near future on the basis of its past performance. However, if the above mixed method is partially modified, it is unreasonable to evaluate the market price of unlisted stocks

③ According to the overall purport of evidence evidence No. 5 and evidence No. 7, O development is a corporation established for the main purpose of housing construction business, real estate rental business, etc., and among the assets listed on the OO development balance sheet applicable to the reference date for appraisal of the unlisted stocks of this case, the appraised value of the land in XX building includes KRW 000, inventory assets (construction sites), KRW 000, and the appraised value of the building (record 396 pages), and KRW 000,000, and the appraised value of the building are deemed to have a high-priced real estate as an asset due to the nature of the business (record 396 pages). However, in the case of the unlisted stocks of this case, only under the net asset value law with respect to the instant unlisted stocks, if the value of stocks per share is assessed under the net asset value law, it is highly likely to have a higher value than the corporation

④ Meanwhile, in light of the Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du26988, 201Du9140, etc., the Defendants asserted that, in cases where the value per share of unlisted stocks cannot be assessed as a supplementary assessment method under Articles 54(1) and 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it can be assessed as a net asset value method by applying mutatis mutandis Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, in cases where the value per share of unlisted stocks as in the instant case cannot be assessed as an weighted average value of net profit or loss and net asset value based on the value or value under Article 56(1)1 or 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as stated in Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is merely just to clarify that it can be assessed as an objective and reasonable method among the supplementary valuation methods prepared by the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, if given the characteristics of unlisted stocks only as a net asset value method, it cannot be evaluated as an objective and reasonable method.

(3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, under the premise that it is lawful to calculate the value per share of the instant unlisted stocks by the net asset value method under Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Defendants’ primary assertion is not acceptable without further review as to the remainder.

B. As to the second preliminary argument

(1) The defendants' assertion

If there is no reason for the first preliminary argument, the above first preliminary argument is calculated on the basis of the average amount of net profit and loss per share of OO development for the last three years pursuant to Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act based only on the ordinary profit of O development for each of the above 2004, 2005, and 2006, which is calculated on the basis of the average amount of net profit and loss per share of O development for the last three years pursuant to Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and calculated on the basis of the average amount of net profit and loss per share of O development as KRW 00,000, the net asset value of O development as KRW 3 (00,000) and 2 (00,000,000) of each of the above rates are calculated on the basis of the average amount of net profit and loss per share (hereinafter "the market value calculation method I of this case").

(2) Determination

(A) In addition, it is reasonable to view that the provision of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that sets forth a supplementary evaluation method on non-listed stocks under the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to supplement the provision of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that sets the market value principle in the evaluation of inherited property to calculate the value close to the market price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1679, Jun. 23, 200). In addition, if it is difficult to calculate the market price, it is to ensure the legal stability and predictability for the taxpayers and to bring about

(B) However, on the grounds that the following circumstances were examined in light of the purport of the provision on the supplementary evaluation method as seen earlier and Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act with respect to the instant unlisted stocks on the ground that the calculation method based on the net asset value method under Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is difficult to be considered as an objective and reasonable supplementary evaluation method, it is reasonable to view that the method of calculating the market value of the instant unlisted stocks is an objective and reasonable method that applies mutatis mutandis to the method of assessing the unlisted stocks under

① As seen earlier, each of the instant dispositions can distort the scale of ordinary profit arising from O’s normal business activities in light of the size and nature of the net profit and loss of O’s development in the last three years from the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for O’s recent three years necessary for the assessment of the net profit and loss pursuant to Articles 54(1) and 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. As such, it is not reasonable to apply the formula under Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act to the effect that it is not reasonable to apply the formula under Article 56(1) of the same Act, since it is unlawful to calculate the net profit and loss amount for the last three years on the basis of only the average amount of net profit and loss for each of the instant three years, such as the method of calculating the market value of the instant unlisted stocks, it is not deemed that the average profit and loss amount for the instant three years can not be deemed to have any undue effect on O’s normal development, but not any other profit.

② In calculating the net profit and loss amount of O development pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, unless there exists a provision that the above special profit may be deducted and calculated as the net profit and loss amount, it cannot be calculated per share value of the instant unlisted stocks by the method of market price calculation. However, in light of the above legal principle, in a case where the value of the instant unlisted stocks cannot be assessed by supplementary assessment method provided for in the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act or the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, inasmuch as it can be assessed by using an objective and reasonable method applied mutatis mutandis the supplementary assessment method provided for in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it cannot be concluded that the method of calculating the value of the instant non-listed stocks is unlawful solely on the grounds that there is no provision that the above special profit and loss amount can be deducted by the supplementary assessment method provided for in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act or the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, the Plaintiffs asserted that the above special profit and loss amount should be calculated by deducting the market value of the instant unlisted stocks as the method as the market price calculation method.

③ Furthermore, Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act declares the principle of market value that the property shall be appraised based on the market price. Accordingly, the legislative intent of the legislators is to reflect the net profit and loss and the net asset value of the instant unlisted stocks in the valuation of the unlisted stocks, except in exceptional cases where the valuation of unlisted stocks requires an assessment by only net asset value under Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. As long as it appears that the method of reflecting the net profit and loss value as much as possible in the valuation of the instant unlisted stocks is the method of excluding the identity of the tax authority and securing objectivity. Unless there are special circumstances, the appraised value of unlisted stocks cannot be deemed as the market price under Article 1160(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 208Du1849, May 13, 201). Unlike the method of calculating the market price of the instant unlisted stocks, specific and reasonable methods are not discovered that can reasonably evaluate

(C) Therefore, it is not illegal to calculate the value per stock of the instant unlisted stocks according to the method of market price calculation. However, if the value per stock of the instant unlisted stocks is re-calculated according to the method of market price calculation, 25,935 won is to be charged, and accordingly, the amount of each reasonable tax of the instant corporate tax, gift tax, transfer income tax and securities transaction tax to be charged to the Plaintiffs is re-calculated. As to the facts that the amount is calculated as stated in the “justifiable Tax Code” in the “list of Disposition No. 1”, it can be acknowledged in view of the parties’ dispute or according to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in the evidence No. 11 and No. 12,

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified only for the portion exceeding the amount indicated in the above legitimate tax amount column among the amounts stated in each of the above dispositions of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case of this case is justified for the part exceeding the "political tax amount" of each of the above "political tax amount," and the remaining claims against the defendant Samsung C&O of the plaintiff Kim Dongdong Tax Office of the plaintiff Kim Dongdong Tax Office and the remaining claims against the plaintiff Kim Dongdong Tax Office of the plaintiff Kim Dongdong Tax Office of the plaintiff Kim Dongdong Tax Office, and the remaining claims against the plaintiff Kim Jae-cheon Tax Office of the plaintiff Kim Dongcheon Tax Office of defendant

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the above claims is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the defendants' appeal and changing the judgment of the court of first instance as above.