2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 44,670,00 on April 15, 2009 by the director of the tax office on Plaintiff 1 on April 15, 2009, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 8,415,00 on April 15, 200 by the director of the tax office on March 2009, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

A. The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance (except for the part against Plaintiff 3 of the court of first instance) is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance (except for the part against Plaintiff 3 of the court of first instance). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

B. Additional parts

(1) Following the first instance court’s fourth decision that “No one shall exist” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10200, Feb. 8, 2007).

She said that “No dispute exists between the above parties” in the fifth, third, and fourth, the fifth, and fourth, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “no dispute between the above parties or recognized by the aforementioned evidence.”

Article 5(1)(5) of the first instance court’s decision shall add the following:

Although the Defendant asserts that “The shareholder registry of this case (the evidence No. 2, No. 13) is merely a document prepared and submitted temporarily for convenience by filing a report on the establishment of a new wind committee and an application for registration of business, and only a document prepared and submitted temporarily for convenience, it cannot be deemed a shareholder registry prepared in accordance with the Commercial Act. However, the shareholder registry of this case is a book prepared to clarify matters concerning shareholders and stock certificates, and there is no special restriction on its form. Thus, the shareholder registry of this case contains contents stipulated in Article 352 of the Commercial Act, such as personal information of shareholders and the number and type of shares held, so long as the shareholder registry of this case contains contents stipulated in Article 352 of the Commercial Act, it shall be deemed a legitimate shareholder registry, and it is difficult to view that the above shareholder registry of this case is merely a document

x. The following shall be added to the 6th 12th 12th am of the first instance judgment:

[C] According to the current Corporate Tax Act, the Defendants’ statement of changes in stocks, etc. should be prepared by reflecting the change of entry into the register of shareholders. Thus, each of the instant dispositions pursuant to Article 45-2(3) of the Act should be deemed lawful unless the Plaintiffs asserted and prove that the change of entry into the register of shareholders was already made. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the change of entry into the register of shareholders was not carried out immediately after preparing and submitting a statement of changes in stocks, etc., cannot be permitted against the principle of good faith.

As alleged by the Defendants, in order to presume that Nonparty 1 held the shares of 39,780 shares of YNN and 11,220 shares of 39,780 shares of YNN and 20 shares of 11,220 shares to be donated from Nonparty 1, it should be proved that the change of ownership was made in the name of the Plaintiffs on the register of shareholders of YNNNN. Since the register of shareholders of this case is made on the register of shareholders of YNNNN, Article 45-2 (3) of the Act, which provides that in a case where the change of ownership is not likely to be made due to the absence of the register of shareholders, the change of ownership is exceptionally determined on the basis of the detailed statement of changes in shares, and thus, it is not possible to apply to this case to this case. Accordingly, on the premise that the change of ownership was made in the name of the Plaintiffs on the register of shareholders of YNNND, the Defendants’ assertion that each disposition of this case is unlawful.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims should be accepted on the grounds of their reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the appeal by the defendants is dismissed on the grounds of their merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)