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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The gift tax reverted to the portion on December 1, 2007 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 shall be revoked.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is partly dismissed as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff as to the argument at the appellate court as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○ The second 5th th eth “the similar holder of this case” is referred to as “the capital increase with capital increase,” and the second st st eth eth 2, 2013” as “the December 1, 2013.”

○ 5-1(d)(3-17) parts are as follows.

1) Whether the method of public offering of new securities constitutes Article 2(3) of the former Securities and Exchange Act

In case where a corporation issues new stocks at a price lower than the market price under Article 39 (1) 1 (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the profits earned by a person who is not a shareholder of the corporation concerned by directly receiving the new stocks from the corporation shall be subject to gift tax, while a stock-listed corporation under the Securities and Exchange Act or an Association-registered corporation under the Securities and Exchange Act allocates such stocks to a public offering method of securities under Article 2 (3) of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "general offering method") shall be excluded from taxable objects.

In this case, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence and the facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are ① in order to offer more than a certain amount of securities in accordance with Articles 2(3), 8(1) and 10(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act, the issuer’s registration statement should be submitted to the Financial Services Commission to accept it; ② the instant company submitted a withdrawal statement on August 1, 2007 with respect to the instant securities offering; (2) there was no sanction on the grounds that it failed to perform its duty to report by the Financial Services Commission; and (3) the new stocks issued due to the offering of new stocks cannot be deemed as falling under “a case in which the instant securities are allocated as securities subject to non-taxation under the general provision of the instant case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du41531, Dec. 10, 2015).

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the fact that the issue price of new shares issued upon the offering of new shares was lawfully calculated based on the Securities Regulations, and there was no motive for shareholders of the company to transfer assets to the Plaintiff without compensation, the Plaintiff was difficult to expect that the issue of gift tax would occur by participating in the offering of new shares and acquiring new shares, and there was a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to not report and pay gift tax, and thus, the portion of penalty tax out of the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) For the purpose of facilitating the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law

Administrative sanctions are imposed, as prescribed by individual tax-related Acts, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds. Such sanctions are imposed in accordance with the individual tax-related Acts. It may be said that it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligations, and where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill his/her obligations or where it is unreasonable to expect the party to perform his/her obligations, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13632, Jan. 27, 2005). In such a case, the taxpayer’s intention or negligence shall not be considered, and the land or mistake of statutes shall not be deemed a justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1829, May 23, 2013).

2) We examine the instant case: (a) the Plaintiff is obligated to report and pay gift tax because the Plaintiff is deemed to have been donated by acquiring the instant company’s shares; (b) the donation of profits from capital increase is the payment date of share capital; (c) the instant capital increase is the payment date of share capital based on the third party’s allocation method; (d) the date of the public announcement of share capital increase and the payment date of share capital increase are consistent with the date of share capital increase; (c) the details of shareholder change of the instant company can not be easily confirmed as the public announcement data of the Financial Supervisory Service; and (e) considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s performance of the duty to report and pay gift tax could not be seen as a hindrance to the Plaintiff’s performance of the duty to report and pay gift tax by ascertaining the details of shareholder change, the Plaintiff merely neglected the Plaintiff’s performance of the duty by mistake or mistake, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted (Supreme Court Decision 2015Du41531 Decided December 10, 2015).

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.