2. The plaintiffs shall bear the litigation costs.

A. On February 8, 2002, the plaintiffs purchased 180,000 shares of the Korea Refrigerants Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Refrigerants") from the △△△△△, Inc. (the representative director, hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Refrigerri") on February 8, 2003 (the plaintiff KimA is 100,000 shares; the plaintiff LeeB is 80,00 shares; hereinafter referred to as the "each shares of this case") from the total price of 1,233,51,200 shares (the plaintiff KimA is 685,284,00 won; the plaintiff LeeB is 548,227,200 won); the plaintiff 20,000 won and 400,000 won and 140,000 won and 140,005,740,000 won and 140,001.

B. From April 30, 2007 to May 18, 2007, the Director of the Regional Tax Office confirmed that the purchase price of each of the instant shares was settled with the provisional payment and the provisional payment of the △△ representative director of the △△ri, and notified the Defendants that the doorCC, the actual owner of each of the instant shares, held the title trust of each of the instant shares to the Plaintiffs.

C. Pursuant to Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002), the Defendants deemed the Plaintiffs to have donated each of the instant shares from the doorCC. Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office, on December 1, 2007, imposed gift tax of KRW 203,826,00 on Plaintiff KimA, and Defendant △△ Head of the tax office, on November 8, 2007, gift tax of KRW 146,260,80 on Plaintiff B, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

On January 2002, the Plaintiffs asserted that each disposition of this case imposing the gift tax on the premise that there was an agreement on title trust between the Plaintiffs and literatureCC is unlawful and thus should be revoked, since the Defendants did not lend the names of the actual owners who purchased each of the instant shares on their own responsibility and account by delegation of all of them to the literatureCC, which was recommended to invest in shares from the △△△△○○ representative director, the Dong-ri representative director, an elementary school,

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the above evidence, Gap evidence and evidence Nos. 11 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 9 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings by the witness doorCC, the purchase price of each of the above shares was raised in the form of deposit money and provisional payment. The plaintiffs' actual purchase price of each of the above shares and the amount stated in each of the above loan No. 600,000 and each of the above 6-mentioned shares were 00,000,000 won and 0.0,000 won were 0,000 won were 60,000 won were 0,000 won were 10,000 won were 60,000 won were 0,000 won were 0,000 won were 0,000 won were 60,000 won were 60,000 won were 0,000 won were 1,000 won were 1,000 won were 6.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.