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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendants’ attached Table “Plaintiff” shall revoke all the disposition of refusal to rectify capital gains tax reduction or exemption for the year 2014, as shown in the attached Table “Disposition” column for the relevant Plaintiffs.

A. As shown in the attached table (hereinafter referred to as the "mark") between the plaintiffs and 20O.O.O. corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "OOO"), the plaintiffs prepared a "OO shares sale contract for the plaintiffs to sell OO stocks held by the plaintiffs to OO," and "OO shares acceptance contract for the plaintiffs to accept the shares issued by OO from OOO.O.O.O.O.O. corporation and the above sales contract for the above sales contract, and acquired the OO shares by receiving the purchase price as stipulated in the above underwriting contract from OO on the same day.

B. On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiffs’ shares acquired as above were all incinerated when OOO was merged into OO community case (hereinafter “OO community case”) and the Plaintiffs were allocated OO community shares for the same day.

C. The plaintiffs transferred shares of O.O.O.O.O.O. held as above (hereinafter the "transfer of this case"), and the "Defendant" in the "disposition" in the "Disposition of the Schedule to the Transfer Income Tax for the 200O.O.O. 20O.O. 20O.O. 20O. 20O. 200, the "the date on which the preliminary return and the voluntary payment of the corresponding amount was made," and the "the date on which the request for reduction was made" in the "Special Tax Treatment Control Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply)" in Article 14 (1) 4 and Article 13 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2567, Nov. 4, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply).

D. The defendants issued a disposition of refusal to reduce or correct the amount to the plaintiffs (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the disposition of this case") as stated in the Schedule.

E. The Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on 20O.O.O.O., but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 20O.O.O., respectively.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 7, Eul's 1 through 9 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The transfer of this case satisfies all the requirements for non-taxation prescribed by the special provisions of this case. The disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(i) requirements for application of special provisions;

In order to apply the special provisions of this case, the following requirements must be satisfied (hereinafter referred to as "requirements for venture businesses, investment method requirements, non-existence of special relationship, and three-year lapse requirements from the date of investment).

(1) It shall be invested in a venture business (referring to a venture business under Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses; hereinafter the same shall apply) within 3 years after its establishment or in a venture business which has been converted into a venture business within 3 years from its conversion into a venture business (Article 13 (1) 1

(2) The amount of contribution shall be paid in capital at the time of establishment of the relevant enterprise or within seven years after the relevant enterprise is incorporated by either capital increase increase, capitalization of surplus funds, or conversion of debt (the main sentence of Article 14 (1) and Article 13 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act).

(3) An individual shall make an investment in a venture business that has no special relationship with him under Article 98 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 87 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as the “special relationship”), or an association under Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses shall make an investment in a venture business that has no special relationship with its members (Article 13

(4) Stocks shall be transferred after the lapse of three years from the date of investment (the main sentence other than each subparagraph of Article 13 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

2) Determination by requirement

A) Requirements for venture businesses

At the time of the acquisition by the plaintiffs of 20O.O., the O.O., whether the "O." falls under a venture business (referring to a venture business under Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses; hereinafter the same shall apply) within 3 years after its establishment or a venture business which has been converted into a venture business within 3 years after its incorporation.

According to Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 7, and evidence 8, it can be known that the OO was established 20O.O.O.O. at the time when 20O.O.O. at the time when 7 years have elapsed since the above establishment date, it cannot be said that it constitutes "a venture business within 3 years after its establishment", and it is a problem whether it constitutes "a venture business within 3 years since its conversion into a venture business".

Article 25 (1) of the former Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a venture business which intends to obtain support under this Act as a venture business may request confirmation from the head of an institution or organization prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the Korea Technology Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as " venture business confirmation institution"), as to whether it falls under the venture business, and Article 18-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21100, Nov. 4, 2008; hereafter the same shall apply) delegated by it is listed in the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, the Small Business Corporation, and the Korea Venture Capital Association as a venture business confirmation institution.

However, according to the result of each fact-finding reply to the President of the Korea Venture Capital Association, the President of the Small and Medium Business Corporation, and the President of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, the Small and Medium Business Corporation set the period from 20O.O.O. to 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O. within the period from 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., and each venture business was confirmed by the Korea Technology Finance Corporation.

In light of the contents and facts of the above relevant laws and regulations, prior to 20O.O.O. prior to the first confirmation of venture business, it is presumed that the OO did not meet the requirements for venture business under Article 2(1) of the former Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses and did not obtain confirmation of venture business. O.O.A. around the time of 20O.O.O.O.O.O., it appears that the OO., at the time of 20O.O.O., "the venture business which was converted to a venture business for 3 years or less" constituted a venture business.

B) Requirements for investment method

As seen above, the Plaintiffs paid the amount of investment with capital increase within seven years from the date of establishment of the OO, and it is reasonable to deem that the requirements for investment method under Article 13(2)2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act are satisfied.

The Defendants asserted that, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiffs and OOO prepared the “OO share sale contract” and “OO shares acquisition contract” on the same day; (b) the balance paid by the OOO to the Plaintiffs under the above sale contract was re-paid as the purchase price of the OO shares; and (c) the overall process of this case, it cannot be deemed that the OO was a new fund acquisition price; and (d) thus, the requirements for investment method were not satisfied. However, the taxpayer may arbitrarily choose to take any legal form in order to achieve a specific economic purpose at the time of economic activities; and (c) the tax authority shall respect the legal relationship in accordance with the legal form chosen by the taxpayer, barring any special circumstance, such as the most active act or tax avoidance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du49320, Apr. 7, 2017), even if the Defendants alleged by the Defendants, it does not constitute a case where “the capital increase was paid within seven years after the establishment of the relevant company,” and the investment investment directly made an individual’s investment in the venture business.

C) Requirements for no special relationship at the time of investment

At the time of the investment of the plaintiffs, whether there was no special relationship between the plaintiffs and the OO, a venture business subject to the investment, under Article 98 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 87 (1) of the Enforcement Decree

As seen above, the plaintiffs paid the acquisition price of the O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., and according to the evidence Nos. 2 and No. 4, it is recognized that the plaintiffs were employed as an employee of 20O.O.O.O.O., prior to the above acquisition price. The plaintiffs were employees of OO at the time of investment, and there was a special relationship under Article 98(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23588, Feb. 2, 2012) between O and O.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the existence of special relation should be determined on the basis of "the time of concluding a contract that causes investment", and that the 20O.O.O. at the time of the preparation of an OO. share acquisition contract, the plaintiffs not yet become an employee of the O.O., and therefore, the non-existence requirement should be deemed to have been satisfied.

Therefore, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, barring any special circumstance, in light of the principle of no taxation without the law, or the principle of no taxation without the law, and the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation without the reasonable reason is not allowed. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be clearly viewed as preferential provisions among the requirements for tax reduction and exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9884, Oct. 26, 2007).

With respect to this case, Article 13(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act ("the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") provides that "A person shall do so" or Article 87(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

In light of the language and text of “investment in a venture business that has no special relation” under the provisions of the above provision, the existence of a special relation should be determined at the time of “investment”. However, in light of the following, since an investment under Article 13(2)2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is made at the time of full payment of capital increase, the base point of determining the existence of a special relation is the time of the completion of payment of capital increase, and the aforementioned assertion by the Plaintiffs on a different premise is without merit.

(1) Article 13 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for "investment under the main sentence of Article 13 (2)."

The term "acquisition shares or equity shares by any of the methods listed in any of the subparagraphs," and Article 2 of the same Act, which is invoked by the plaintiffs as non-taxation grounds in this case, provides that "the method of paying capital increase in the case of capital increase in consideration of capital increase within seven years after the incorporation of the relevant company" is "the

② Since Article 2(1) and (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not separately define the concept of acquisition, the concept of acquisition should be governed by the laws provided for in Article 3(1)1 through 19 of the same Act, as prescribed by Article 3(2) of the same Act. However, Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10900, Jul. 25, 201) which is listed in Article 3(1)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act stipulates the date of acquisition of assets in principle as the date of liquidation of the price of assets.

3) Sub-decisions

The transfer of this case does not satisfy the requirements for non-existence of special relation at the time of investment.

No tax-exempt object prescribed by the special provisions of the Act. The disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.