2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff, the representative director of the BB B B B B operations (hereinafter referred to as "B operations"), the non-listed corporation, together with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff 3,120,000 shares in the entire BB operations (the plaintiff 2,805,00 shares (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff 2,805, and hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff 89.9%") and the SongCC 170,000 shares (5.45%) and KimD 145,00 shares (4.65%).

B. On April 14, 2009, the Plaintiff, etc. sold 3,120,000 shares of BB (hereinafter “the shares of this case”) to EE Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E Energy”), and on May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax (00 won) to the Defendant by transferring the shares of this case to EE Energy.

C. On January 7, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff, etc., actually transferred the entire stocks of BB to the Defendant at KRW 000, and filed a request for correction to the effect that the transfer income tax amount should be reduced to KRW 000 by using the actual transfer value, which corresponds to the transfer price of the instant stocks. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on February 7, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and dismissed on May 24, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the pleading, as described in the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 10, and

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On February 5, 2009, the Plaintiff et al. transferred to EE energy that is planned to take over BB 3,120,000 shares between FEF, and as a result, drafted a basic agreement (Evidence A 3) with the same purport as EE Energy on March 12, 2009. Accordingly, EE Energy allocates new shares equivalent to KRW 10,256,410 (in the name of 100 won designated by the Plaintiff et al.) through the securities account in which the Plaintiff et al. submitted a revised tax base return on the premise that the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s shares would be 00,000 won (in the case of 10,000 won) and the revised tax base return on the premise that the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s shares would be 90,000 won (in the case of 100,000 won) and the revised tax base return on the Plaintiff’s shares would be 90,000 won (in the case of this case).

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the plaintiff et al. may be recognized as transferring 3, 120, and 00 shares to EE Energy in 00 won, taking into account the descriptions of Gap, Gap evidence 3, and Eul evidence 4 through 7, and the whole purport of the pleading:

① The basic agreement (Evidence No. 3) and the agreement (Evidence No. 4) presented by the Plaintiff et al. that the transfer value of the instant shares is KRW 4 billion is not made between the representative director of the EE Energy, but rather made between each of the EE Energy or EK (nameed as the manager of the EE Energy), and there is no evidence to deem that the agreement has a legitimate authority to represent the EE Energy.

② On March 13, 2009, between the Plaintiff, etc. and EE Energy, a share acquisition agreement (Evidence 4) stipulating the entire amount of the transfer price of stocks of BB B B B B B, including the instant stocks, was drafted, and on April 14, 2009, a revised agreement on stock acquisition by reducing the transfer price to KRW 000 (Evidence 5) was drafted, and this agreement was based on the result of the evaluation of the stock value of BB conducted by the GG accounting corporation as follows.

③ On April 13, 2009, GG accounting firm prepared a “an evaluation statement by an external evaluation institution” which evaluated the scope of value per share of stocks of BB as KRW 000,000. When converting this into the price of 3,120, and 000 shares of the total stocks, the amount of KRW 00 which the Plaintiff, etc. reported as the transfer value of the entire stocks of BB shall be included in the said evaluation statement.

④ On April 30, 2009, EE Energy paid to the Plaintiff, etc. total amount of KRW 000 of the transfer price of the instant stocks, etc. by depositing KRW 000 with the Plaintiff’s purchase price of the instant stocks, etc., and the Plaintiff, etc. filed a tax base return on capital gains tax by receiving KRW 000 with the transfer price of the instant stocks, etc.

⑤ Although the Plaintiff alleged that the South H, and the South H, immediately withdrawn 00 won transferred to the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, there is no evidence to deem that part of the stock purchase price was returned to the EE energy.

6. The EE Energy prepared and published an accounting report stating that the acquisition of the instant shares, etc. was paid KRW 000 according to the contract. There is no evidence to doubt that the executives and employees of EE Energy have embezzled the company fund of KRW 000 in a manner that pays the purchase price of shares in accordance with the contract, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.