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

A. The plaintiff is a company established for the purposes of export and import business and export agency business, and the mostB, the lowestCC, the lowestD, and the E (hereinafter referred to as the "minimumB et al.") are those who were shareholders of the plaintiff and are the largest FF, a major shareholder of the plaintiff.

B. On April 27, 2007, the largestB et al. sold the Plaintiff’s shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) owned by each of the following three parties, and reported and paid the acquisition tax of each transfer on June 30, 2007.

C. On May 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed the instant stock transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and three others as constructive dividend due to the retirement of shares or the reduction of capital; and (b) imposed a disposition on the Plaintiff on May 8, 2012, the dividend income tax of KRW 000 (this tax + penalty tax of KRW 000) accrued in 2007.

D. On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the said disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the claim was dismissed on November 26, 2012.

E. On March 5, 2013, when the argument in this case was in progress, the Defendant revoked the direct right to impose the penalty tax, and subsequently imposed the same amount on May 1, 2013, and 41,743 out of the shares in this case was owned by the Plaintiff’s shareholder, the largest FF and the largest BB, and the KimG’s mother, the third party, and corrected the principal tax amount to KRW 00 and the penalty tax to KRW 000 upon each reduction of KRW 00 (hereinafter referred to as “the imposition disposition in this case”). [Recognizing the imposition disposition in this case on dividend income tax as of May 1, 2013 and the imposition disposition on the penalty tax as of March 5, 2013, the Defendant did not have any dispute over the facts, and evidence Nos. 1 through 41, and evidence No. 531, evidence No. 61, each of subparagraph 4, and evidence No. 531, respectively. 5, 2013]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On May 8, 2012, when the Defendant imposed dividend income tax on the Plaintiff on May 8, 2012, the Defendant merely stated the total tax base and calculated tax amount on the principal tax in the tax payment notice, without stating the grounds for calculation or tax rate, and did not attach separate tax calculation specifications, such disposition is an unlawful taxation disposition based on an unlawful tax payment notice.

2) The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s shareholder, the largestB, and three other parties, first lent the instant shares as collateral, and subsequently, tried to recover the said loan on the ground that it does not constitute a ground for claim for stock purchase. However, as the recovery was difficult, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the company’s own shares was inevitable to achieve its purpose in exercising the company’s rights, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

3) If the above inevitable cause is not recognized, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares shall be deemed null and void due to the acquisition of treasury shares that are not permitted by the law. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether a principal tax payment notice on dividend income exists

Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the head of a tax office intends to collect national taxes shall issue a taxpayer a tax payment notice stating the tax period, the tax items, the basis for calculation, and the time limit for payment." The provisions on the tax payment notice under the National Tax Collection Act and individual tax-related Acts provide that due process principles and the basic principles of the Administrative Procedures Act shall be accepted in the area of taxation disposition, and the tax authorities shall exclude persons from taxation, so as to ensure fairness in tax administration, and that the tax authorities shall give the taxpayer a more detailed notice of the details of the taxation disposition and convenience in appeal, and these provisions should be considered as mandatory provisions. Therefore, if the tax payment notice contains no proper provision on the tax payment notice, it is established that the taxation disposition is unlawful, unless there are special circumstances, 200 parts of the tax payment notice, and 30 parts of the tax payment notice that are issued by the Plaintiff, and 20 parts of the tax payment notice should not be included in the calculation basis for each tax payment notice as provided for in Article 9(1)1 of the National Tax Collection Act.

2) Determination as to whether a stock is acquired for the purpose of stock retirement

A) Fact finding

(1) On June 28, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) on December 31, 2006, when each of the instant shares was due for each of the instant shares to be owned by the biggestB and three others; (b) on December 31, 2006, lent KRW 00 to the MaximumCC, KRW 000, and KRW 000 to the MaximumD, and KRW 000 to the Maximum E.

(2) On April 27, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased the instant shares from the lowestB and three other parties, and paid the difference between each of the purchase price and the balance of each of the above loans, and the payment details are the lowestB00 won, the lowestCC 000 won, and the lowest 000 won, and the EE000 won.

(3) The minutes of the ordinary shareholders' meeting of the plaintiff on March 29, 2007 related to the acquisition of the plaintiff's shares are as follows: there are two certified by a notary public on April 16, 2007 and July 10, 2007 from the OJoint Law Office; and each of the minutes of the ordinary shareholders' meeting (hereinafter referred to as "Minutes certified on April 16, 2007" and "Minutes certified on July 10, 207") are as follows.

(4) At the time of December 29, 2004, the Plaintiff’s shares were owned respectively by the highest FF among 3,421,009, the total issued shares were 2,856,91, KimGG 79,740, the highest of 219,016, the highest of 219,574, the highest of D and the lowest of D and the lowest of 9,810, and 96,068, respectively.

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 8, and Eul evidence 8, and the whole purport of the pleading

B) Determination

(1) Article 17(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act provide that the Plaintiff may impose income tax on the Plaintiff’s shares by deeming them as 0. 2. The Plaintiff’s shares are 0-6 shares to be purchased and sold, 70-6 shares to be purchased and 10-6 shares to be purchased and 70-6 shares to be purchased and 10-6 shares to be purchased and 7-6 shares to be purchased and 9-6 shares to be purchased and 7-7 shares to be purchased and 9-6 shares to be purchased and 7-7 shares to be purchased and 9-7 shares to be purchased and otherwise authenticated by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff appears to have the burden of proof as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20653, Jul. 7, 1987; Presidential Decree No. 20651, Jul. 10, 200; Presidential Decree No. 20651, Feb. 27, 2007>

(2) Since it is difficult for the Plaintiff to acquire shares on its own account with respect to the validity of the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s shares, and the acquisition of shares on its own account is likely to undermine the interests of the Plaintiff and its shareholders, and cause unfair control by the representative director, the Commercial Act uniformly prohibits the acquisition of shares for general prevention purposes, and it is clearly classified as a type of case where the acquisition of shares is allowed, and thus, it cannot be viewed as invalid for the Plaintiff to acquire shares for the purpose of 30 years old Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 10600, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter the same), as stated in Article 341-2 of the former Commercial Act, and Article 342-2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 1060, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter the same), the Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares for the purpose of 3 years old acquisition of shares without consideration, and it cannot be viewed as invalid for 10 years old acquisition of shares for the Plaintiff’s own shares.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff purchased the instant shares for the purpose of stock retirement is unlawful, and thus, should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.