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

(a) The current status of the shareholders of Do prospective Doump, Doump Business (hereinafter referred to as Doump, Doumpdump Business), Doump Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Doump Development Co., Ltd.)

(1) Doestriflaz:

(2) dedicated development

(b) Details on capital increase for funded development;

(1) Paid-in capital increase with common shares of 382,00 shares, redemption priority shares of 660,000 shares (this case’s shares) by the third party allotment method around June 2005. The face value of the shares of this case is KRW 5,000 per share, and the issue value is KRW 41,300 per share.

(2) Do○○○○○○○○○○○○ 41,300 won per share of the instant shares in accordance with the said capital increase for capital increase (hereinafter referred to as the “instant act”). A total of KRW 8,057,655,901 loss incurred on or around June 2005 at KRW 8,05.

C. Defendant’s imposition of gift tax (the instant disposition on June 23, 2008; hereinafter the same)

(1) 내용 : 원고 백☆☆에게 930,695,780원, 원고 백★★에게 946,818,710원, 원고 임 ○○에게 970,989,790원각 ㆍ부과

(2) Grounds for disposition

(2) The shareholders of the company who are the shareholders of the company at low price the shares of this case shall be entitled to receive the profit equivalent to the difference in the market price by allocating the shares of this case at low price to the Do○○○○○○○○○○ Business and its shareholders in a special relationship

(3) Article 41(1)2 and 4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18177, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 8,057,65,901 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be deemed as KRW 9,758,30,00 [9,758,30,300 per share [50,65 won per share after the capital increase of the shares of this case - 41,300 won per share issued) 】 (1,042,000 won per share of the Plaintiffs (excluding the portion equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share ratio of shares) calculated pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ shares (excluding the portion equivalent to KRW 3621,3814,655,900

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, evidence 1 to 3-1, 2, 5-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Since Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) is unconstitutional and invalid, the instant disposition based thereon is also unlawful.

(2) The instant act is only a transaction between the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company and the Plaintiff, which was a shareholder of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company, and there was no transactional relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs’ profit accrued therefrom was not revealed at all. The taxation requirements stipulated in Article

(3) Since the share value increase profit from the issue of this case’s capital increase is unrealized capital gain, it cannot be deemed as subject to the gift tax unless there is a clear provision such as Article 39(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B. Determination

(1) As the first note:

Article 41 (1) of the Act provides that "where a person in a special relationship with a stockholder or investor of a specified corporation has acquired profits from the stockholder, etc. of the specified corporation through transactions falling under any one of the following subparagraphs, such as gratuitous provision of property or services with the specified corporation, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed the value of donated property of the relevant specified corporation, and the provision of this case by delegation shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the profits acquired by the stockholder, etc. (limited to the amount of losses) by the ratio of stocks or equity shares (limited to cases where the relevant amount is at least KRW 100 million)." The fact that the defendant calculated the value of donated property of the plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case is as seen earlier.

However, Article 41 of the Act delegates only "the calculation of the profit" to the Enforcement Decree on the premise that the largest shareholder, etc. has obtained the profit by the transaction such as gratuitous provision of property with a specific corporation, although the provision of this case is delegated only to the Enforcement Decree, it shall be deemed that the profit acquired by a specific corporation is the profit obtained by a shareholder, etc., and it shall be calculated as the value

In addition, according to Article 41 (1) of the Act, even if property is provided to a specific corporation without compensation, if a shareholder, etc. gains no profit, it may be excluded from the subject of gift tax. However, if the enforcement decree of this case provides property to a specific corporation without compensation, etc., it shall be deemed that the shareholder, etc. gains profit, and thus

In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to view the enforcement decree of this case as null and void not only contrary to the purport of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Act, but also exceeding the scope of delegation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du19693, Mar. 19, 2009).

The above argument of the plaintiffs is justified.

(2) As long as the instant provision is null and void, the instant disposition that applied the instant provision without further examining the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are reasonable and acceptable.