The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the acquisition value of the instant shares cannot be deemed “0 won” which is the market price under Article 41(1)3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11128, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) and Article 72(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter the same), and determined that the instant shares acquired by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 41(1)1 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 72(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acquisition value of shares issued with capital increase.

2. Article 88(1)8-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the Plaintiff’s act of acquiring new shares at a higher price by participating in the capital increase with new shares issued by C company as to Article 2 of the ground of appeal No.

As to the Defendant’s assertion that the new shares should be denied by wrongful calculation, the lower court, on the ground that the legal nature of the issuance of new shares, which is a capital transaction, issued new shares, even if the issuing corporation issued new shares by raising the issue price, in principle, cannot be deemed as a distribution of profits to the issuing corporation due to the relationship with the issuing corporation and thus, it is difficult to view the instant provision as a distribution of profits to the issuing corporation.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on profit sharing corporations.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.