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

A. Plaintiff A is a child between the network C and D, and Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and E and F are children between the network C and G.

B. Around 2011, Plaintiff A, 1,027 shares of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) were owned by Plaintiff B, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff B, and 900 shares by E, and 2,342 shares, and E and F respectively donated all of the shares they owned to H around January 4, 2011.

(2) Each of the above donations was made by H, on the other hand, at the time when each of the instant donations was made, there was a loss carried forward of KRW 7,896,064,484.

C. On February 29, 2012, each of the instant donations was amended by Presidential Decree No. 18175, Feb. 29, 2012; specific provisions of Article 31(6) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”); Article 41(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter “former Tax Act”); Article 31(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the instant case”) were voluntarily reported to and notified to the respective tax authorities of the Plaintiff’s gift tax (including additional tax); Article 603,3101,371,41,65, respectively;

(hereinafter “Imposition of each gift tax of this case”) D.

However, on April 20, 2017, the Supreme Court held that the legal provision of this case was a provision delegated to the Presidential Decree only on the method of calculating the legitimate increase in the value of the stocks of a specific corporation owned by the shareholders, etc. on the premise that the shareholders, etc. of the specific corporation obtained profits through the transaction with the specific corporation, such as gratuitous provision of property.