2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% is assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

On November 16, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition of gift tax (this tax) for the year 2005 against the Plaintiffs, and the disposition of imposition of additional tax for the year 2005 against the Plaintiffs on January 2, 2013 (additional additional tax for additional tax + OOO on additional tax) is revoked (the Plaintiff’s written application for change of claim and cause of claim as of October 22, 2014, the date of disposition of principal tax for the gift tax is also deemed as of January 2, 2013, but as examined below, the date of disposition of principal tax for the gift tax is deemed as of November 16, 2010.

A. Acquisition and disposal of LL stocks of Plaintiff KimB et al.

1) On April 18, 2005, Plaintiff KimB and KangB acquired 3,498,750 shares of LL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “LL”) owned by KKKKKK as listed below, and additionally acquired 590,866 shares of LL from April 19, 2005 to September 26, 2005.

Table - - omitted

2) The LL passed a resolution on June 9, 200 on the allotment shares of 400,000 shares, the issue price per share, and the third party allotment method on June 13, 2005 on the share capital payment date (hereinafter referred to as “instant subscription shares”) and announced it to the public notice system.

3) From April 18, 2005 to September 26, 2005, Plaintiff KimB et al. acquired LL stocks 4,389,616 shares (i.e., 3,498,750 shares on April 18, 2005 + additional acquired + 590,866 shares + 300,00 shares for capital increase with new shares + 4,214 shares from April 18, 2005 to October 28, 2005; and (ii) the proceeds were sold inside and outside of the Stock Exchange from April 18, 2005 to October 28, 2005; and (iii) the amount was the aggregate of the proceeds was the OOO shares; and (iv) the transfer income tax was not reported and paid accordingly.

3) On August 4, 2005, LL conducted a comprehensive share swap with MM Entertainment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) and NN Entertainment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”), free capital reduction of three share of LL to one share. On August 1, 2005, LL’s shareholder registry of LL as of August 1, 2005, the shares of Plaintiff KimB were 260,000 share (hereinafter “instant shares”).

B. taxation against PP and Plaintiff KimB

1) After conducting an integrated investigation of corporate tax against MM, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: “PP, a major shareholder and representative director of MM, acquired shares in the name of Plaintiff KimB, and transferred 4,214,614 shares among them. As such, capital gains tax is imposed on PP; Plaintiff KimB, and eight other parties, including Plaintiff KimB, were notified to the head of the competent tax office of imposition of gift tax pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”).

2) Accordingly, on January 18, 2005, the Defendant owned the instant shares in substance a PP and, on the premise that the PP was nominal trust with the Plaintiff KimB, the Plaintiff deemed the instant shares as donation pursuant to Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, imposed on the Plaintiff KimB on February 12, 2007 an OO of the gift tax for the gift tax of 2005 on the instant shares, and on March 19, 2007, issued a disposition imposing the said gift tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(c) criminal and administrative litigation against the PP;

1) On December 11, 2006, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office filed a complaint with the investigation agency on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act that "the capital gains tax was evaded through the title trust of the LL shares". The prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office prosecuted the Plaintiff Lee Dong as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) on the ground that "the Plaintiff Lee Dong, who is the punishment of Lee PP, constitutes the actual owner of the shares". On December 21, 2007, the Seoul Central District Court (2007Da569, 831 (Joint), 1263 (Consolidated) was convicted of the Plaintiff Lee Dong on the grounds that "the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor (2008Do5399) were the actual owner of the shares." However, this appeal was affirmed by the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office.

2) AP and Plaintiff KimB filed a lawsuit with Suwon District Court seeking the revocation of the initial disposition of the instant case (2008Guhap3549). On August 30, 2010, the said court rendered a judgment revoking the initial disposition of the instant case by deeming that the actual owner of the instant shares, etc. was the Plaintiff, who was the type of the PP, and the Plaintiff AA had title trust with the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff KimB, and that the instant shares, etc. were the title trust with the Plaintiff, etc. to the Nonparty 8, including the Plaintiff KimB. The said judgment was finalized around that time.

D. New taxation and decision of correction against the plaintiffs

1) The Defendant revoked the initial disposition against Plaintiff KimB and Lee PP in accordance with the above judgment, and on November 16, 2010, on the premise that the instant shares were owned by Plaintiff Lee Dong-B and that Plaintiff Lee Dong-B made a title trust with the instant shares, the Defendant deemed the donation pursuant to Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and imposed on the Plaintiffs an OOO (including additional OOO) of the gift tax for the gift tax for the year 2005 on the instant shares.

2) The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 23, 201, but were dismissed on December 16, 201.

3) Meanwhile, under Article 63(1)1 (a) and (b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 52-2 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), capital increase was made on June 13, 2005 (the prime payment date), and the capital increase was made on August 3, 2005, which was two months before the base date of appraisal, on the ground that the capital increase was made on August 1, 2005 (the date of capital reduction). The Defendant calculated the amount of additional O’s gift tax on the average of KRW 200,000,000 from June 14, 2005 to August 3, 2005, deeming the date of the payment of the capital increase + the amount of the gift tax on the average of KRW 18,000,00.

4) After November 16, 2012, the Defendant revoked ex officio an OOO of the additional tax (additional tax on negligent tax on negligent return + OOOO of the additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax). On January 2, 2013, the Defendant again imposed and notified the Plaintiffs of the imposition of additional tax by specifying the type of and grounds for calculation of the additional tax (hereinafter the “assessment of imposition of the main tax on the gift tax on November 16, 2010 remaining after the reduction was corrected”), and “the imposition of the additional tax on the gift tax on January 2, 2013,” and “the imposition of the additional tax on the penalty tax on the gift tax on the same day,” and “the imposition of the additional tax on the penalty tax on each of the above dispositions.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Each disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) 원고 김BB은 이PP의 권유를 받아 주식을 취득하였을 뿐이지 원고 이AA으로부터 명의신탁을 받은 적이 없고, 원고 김BB이 2005. 4. 18. 자신의 명의로 취득한 LL 주식 455,000주는 2005. 5.말경까지 모두 처분되었으며, 2005. 8. 1.자 주주명부상 원고 김BB 명의로 되어 있던 이 사건 주식은 원고 이AA이 최QQ 명의 증권계좌에 입고해야 할 것을 원고 김BB 명의 증권계좌에 착오로 입고한 것으로, 원고들은 이 사건 주식에 관하여 명의신탁 약정을 한 사실이 없다.

2) The defendant calculated the appraised value of the shares of this case from June 14, 2005 to August 3, 2005. However, the average market price should be calculated based on the average market price during the remaining period excluding the suspension date of the above transaction from June 10 to July 28, 2005, which was the day following the resolution by the board of directors for capital increase by a third party allotment method. The date of June 10, 2005, which was the day before August 3, 2005, the reduction of capital was completed. However, the shares of this case was suspended from the reduction of capital until the date of reduction of capital. Thus, the market price should be calculated based on the average market price during the period from June 10 to July 28, 2005, excluding the above suspension date of the transaction. < Amended by Act No. 7639, Jul. 29, 2005>

3) The original disposition of this case was revoked due to the Defendant’s fault, and the second disposition of this case was issued. Since it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to cancel the disposition despite the issuance of the initial disposition of this case and to expect the issuance of each disposition of this case to fulfill their duty to pay taxes, the part on the erroneous payment of taxes of this case is unlawful

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Judgment on the non-existence of title trust

The provisions on deemed donation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply where, in property requiring a registration for the transfer or exercise of rights, etc., the actual owner and the nominal owner enter into an agreement or communication, and thus, registration, etc. is unilaterally made in the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. In such a case, if the tax authority establishes only the fact that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and if it proves that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made in the unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, the nominal owner who asserts such act ought to be the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 6-2 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 4-2, and 6, it is recognized that Plaintiff A was the actual owner of the shares of this case, and that the shares of this case were transferred to Plaintiff KimB under the name of Plaintiff KimB as of August 1, 2005. The entries in the evidence Nos. 5 through 7 are insufficient to acknowledge that Plaintiff A erroneously entered the shares of this case into the securities account of Plaintiff KimB, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit.

2) Determination as to the assertion on the market price assessment of shares

A) According to the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, LL, an Association-registered corporation, passed a resolution on June 9, 200 on the allotment of shares 400,000 shares, the issue price per share, the issue price per share, and the third party’s allotment method as of June 13, 2005, and announced it to the public disclosure system. The above payment on June 13, 2005 was made. LL passed a resolution on the reduction of capital for three registered ordinary shares as of April 20, 2005 to one share of the same par value (the market price as of July 29, 2005 to 30,000,000,0000,0000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,000,0000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 3.5,000,000,000 won for 3.

B) According to Articles 60(1) and 63(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the market price of shares of an Association-registered corporation shall be the average daily market price ( regardless of whether there is a transaction record) of the Korea Stock Exchange on a daily basis before and after two months before and after the base date of appraisal. In cases where it is inappropriate to apply the average amount on a daily basis due to a cause such as capital increase, merger, etc. during the above period, the average amount of the period calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree during the two months before and after the base date of appraisal shall be the market price. The average amount of the period calculated as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be the market price. Article 52-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where each cause such as capital increase, merger, etc. occurs before and after the base date of appraisal, the average amount of the final market price during the period

C) First, as to the date of occurrence of the cause of the capital increase before the appraisal base date, the instant capital increase by the third party allotment method, and in the case of the capital increase by the third party allotment method, there is no loss of rights to the old stock itself, and thus, it would be affected by the transaction of the capital increase. Such impact is likely to have already occurred when the capital increase was publicly announced, and it is reasonable to view that the date of the resolution of the board of directors and the date of the public announcement of the capital increase as of June 9, 2005 as the date of the occurrence of the cause of the capital increase. Therefore, since the date following the date when the cause of the capital increase occurred on June 10, 2005, the date above should be counted as the initial date of the market price assessment period. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on

D) Next, the plaintiffs claim that the period of suspension of transaction from July 29, 2005 to August 3, 2005, the date of reduction of capital should be excluded from the market price evaluation period. Thus, the period of termination of the market price should be July 28, 2005. Thus, the market price should be the closing price at the Korea Stock Exchange every two months before and after the appraisal base date regardless of whether or not there are transaction records. In the case where it is inappropriate to follow the average amount due to the reasons such as capital increase or merger during the two months before and after the appraisal base date, the closing date of the market price should be based on the average amount of the period calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the two months after each two months period after the appraisal base date, as seen earlier, on August 2, 2005, which is the day before and after the date of completion of the reduction of capital according to the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

E) Therefore, the calculation period of the average assessed value of the market price of the instant shares is from June 10, 2005 to August 2, 2005, and according to the statements in subparagraph 7-1 and 2 of subparagraph 7, the average assessed value of the market price of the instant shares during the said period is an OO member. The calculation of the reasonable tax amount is examined below.

3) Determination as to the assertion on an erroneous payment for arrears

In order to facilitate the exercise of a taxation right and the realization of a taxation right, an additional tax imposed under tax-related Acts is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax-related Acts in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without any justifiable reason, and where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of his/her obligations, and thus, it is unreasonable for him/her to reasonably present his/her obligations or to expect the performance of his/her obligations to the party concerned, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005).

According to the facts of the above recognition, the original disposition of this case and each of the dispositions of this case are different dispositions by the title truster, and the plaintiffs did not file a gift tax return prior to the original disposition of this case, and the plaintiff KimB denied the title trust itself even in the lawsuit of this case without disclosing the true title trust relationship.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable that the plaintiffs did not know of their duty as to the payment of gift tax, and there was a circumstance that the plaintiffs could reasonably present their duty, or that it would be unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to fulfill their duty, and there is no other evidence to recognize this fact. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the part of the disposition of this case, which was erroneous payment of gift tax, is unlawful, is without merit (However, as seen earlier, since the taxable value of gift tax should be reduced partially, the part where the additional payment of gift tax is reduced, will be examined below).

(d) Calculation of a reasonable calculated tax amount;

Therefore, the taxable value of the gift tax applied to the average amount of the assessed market value of the stocks of this case is KRW 00 (260,000 x KRW 00). The assessed tax amount calculated by applying the gift tax rate (Article 26 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) to the above taxable value is KRW 00 (=O00 + O00 x 40%). As a result, when calculating the additional tax on negligent tax, O0 won (=O0 x 20%) is calculated, and when calculating the additional tax on negligent tax, O0 (=O0 x 20%) is calculated, O0 (OO0 x /O0 x less than won). The additional tax is the total amount of KRW O0 (OO0 ＋ + 40).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiffs' claims, the part exceeding the OO members among the OO members of the gift tax imposition disposition of this case and the plaintiffs' claims for exceeding the OO members among the OO members of the penalty tax imposition disposition of this case are justified, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.