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

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: "Plaintiffs leapA, DaD, leB, and ParkCC (hereinafter "Plaintiffs, etc.")" in No. 13 of the second 13th of the judgment of the court of first instance; "Plaintiffs, etc." are all referred to as "Plaintiffs"; "the plaintiff, etc." below 4th and below are referred to as "the plaintiffs," respectively; and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of this court are added to "the attached Acts and subordinate statutes"; and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same, except for the addition of the newly asserted and the judgment of the plaintiffs at the appellate court as follows; therefore, they are cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Whether the legal provision of this case and the Enforcement Decree provision are unconstitutional and unlawful

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

In the legal provisions of this case, the term "large stockholder" means only one stockholder who has transferred listed stocks. Since the legal provisions of this case do not explicitly specify the scope of third parties who are included in the major stockholder, the above "large stockholder" includes not only one stockholder who has transferred listed stocks but also a person who has a special relationship with them, the legal provisions of this case are null and void as it violates the principle of no taxation without law and prohibition of comprehensive delegation.

Therefore, not only a shareholder who owns a corporation’s shares (hereinafter referred to as “one shareholder”) but also a relative or a related person (hereinafter referred to as “other shareholders”) under Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes is a provision that is premised on the unconstitutional interpretation of the major shareholder part of the legal provision of this case as a provision that goes beyond the delegation scope of the parent law and thus is null and void.

Even if the concept of major shareholder, among the legal provisions of this case, can be deemed to include not only one shareholder but also a person with a special relationship within a certain scope, the enforcement decree of this case is invalid since it excessively broads the scope of the person with a special relationship that includes major shareholder, which goes beyond the inherent limit established by the legal provisions of this case.

In addition, Article 11(1) of the Constitution providing for the prohibition of discrimination against gender and Article 36(1) of the Constitution that demands the dignity and equality of education of individuals in marriage and family life, and thus null and void as it violates Article 11(1) of the Constitution that provides for the prohibition of discrimination against gender and Article 36(1) of the Constitution that provides for the equality of individual dignity and gender.

In addition, according to Article 119(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case, a person who intends to transfer stocks shall calculate the ratio of stocks owned by his/her own and other shareholders and the total market value, etc. and determine whether it constitutes subject to capital gains tax. This is difficult to expect a person who is ordinarily liable for tax payment, and thus, it infringes on his/her predictability. Therefore, the Enforcement Decree of the instant case is null and void because it excessively infringes on an individual’s freedom of economic activities and freedom of occupation

Ultimately, each disposition of this case is unlawful as it is based on the legal provision of this case which is unconstitutional and illegal and invalid, and its enforcement decree.

2) Legislative intent and legislative process of the legal provisions of this case and the Enforcement Decree provisions

In the case of Korea, all of the non-residents have imposed income tax on the capital gains from the transfer of securities, such as stocks, without distinguishing listing and non-listed stocks. However, for residents, income tax has not been imposed for one year considering the policy aspect of fostering the capital market.

In addition, in 190, when an oligopolistic stockholder (including a stockholder who owns more than 50% of the stocks) of a corporation whose total amount of land, buildings and real estate rights is more than 50% of the total amount of assets of the corporation transfers not less than 50% of the stocks of the corporation concerned, the taxation subject to capital gains tax was stipulated. In addition, since 1990, when a stockholder (including a person who is not a shareholder) of a corporation (including a person who is not a shareholder) of a corporation who operates sports facilities business such as golf club business, skiing ground business, recreational facility business, real estate related business, real estate value of which is not less than 80% of the total amount of assets transfers stocks, the transfer income was included in the taxation subject to capital gains tax.

After the amendment of the Income Tax Act by Act No. 5580 on December 28, 1998, when the necessity of taxation on transfer of listed stocks continues to be claimed, the purpose of preventing the abnormal donation using listed stocks and transferring real estate and other assets such as real estate shall be prescribed as subject to capital gains tax: Provided, That taxation on the difference of transfer of all listed stocks shall be limited to cases where a major shareholder (one shareholder and another specially related party thereto) trades listed stocks without holding 5% or more of the stocks of a stock-listed corporation for three years, and shall include 20% or more of the total amount of stocks or 20% of the market price as of January 1, 200 as of the Association or Association after the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act in order to improve the effectiveness of taxation, and thereby, it shall be limited to cases where a major shareholder (one shareholder and one specially related party thereof) makes it difficult to raise various financing of the company and lose investors' various opportunities for investment in the securities market.

On the other hand, Article 3 of the former Income Tax Act provides that all income under the same Act shall be taxed in principle. Article 4 of the same Act provides that "income accruing from the transfer of assets" shall be "income from the transfer of assets," and Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act provides that the specific contents of the transfer income shall be subject to taxation without delegation of specific taxable objects to the Presidential Decree, and the detailed scope of the transfer income shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree, but the detailed scope of the transfer income shall be set by the Presidential Decree. The Presidential Decree of this case provides that the shareholders of stock-listed corporations and the related persons under the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be deemed large shareholders, and the major shareholders shall be subject to taxation in cases where the total market price of the large shareholders is at least 00 won.

3) Determination

Although the legal provision of this case does not directly stipulate the scope of a major shareholder and delegates it to the Presidential Decree. However, in light of the above principle of taxation on capital gains, the scope of a major shareholder needs to be determined by the Presidential Decree rather than the Act, and the legislative purport, circumstances, and details of the provision of this case, it can be predicted that the scope of a major shareholder can be delegated to the Presidential Decree by taking into account the legislative purport, contents, and contents of the provision of this case. The legal provision of this case interpreted that the scope of a major shareholder includes one shareholder and a related party within a certain scope, which goes beyond the majority of the contents and scope to be delegated to the Presidential Decree, and thus does not violate the principle of no taxation without law or the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation.

Therefore, the enforcement decree of this case also includes one shareholder and other shareholders within the scope of the major shareholder to achieve the legislative purpose of the legal provision of this case. Since the enforcement decree of this case clearly specifies the scope of other shareholders included in the scope of the major shareholder, it cannot be said that the provision of this case goes beyond the inherent limit on the scope of the major shareholder, and thus is invalid. In addition, under the provision of the enforcement decree of this case, in the case where one shareholder and other shareholders are related to one shareholder and his/her children, such as the plaintiffs, it does not vary depending on whether the shareholder is a father, mother, credit, credit, credit, and other shareholders. In light of the corresponding standard of major shareholder under the provision of the enforcement decree of this case and the accessibility of information about the status of the major shareholder's stockholding, etc., a shareholder who owns listed stocks to the extent that he/she is subject to taxation under the provision of this case, and if he/she pays attention and attention, he/she can not be deemed as a invalid provision of Article 16 (10)14 of the Constitution (see Article 16 (10) of the Enforcement Decree of this case).

Ultimately, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion that the legal provision of this case and the Enforcement Decree provision of this case are invalid in unconstitutional and unlawful way is without merit.

B. Whether each of the dispositions of this case was unlawful

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

A) Among the dispositions of this case, the additional tax on negligent tax returns and the additional tax on negligent tax returns equivalent to 10 to 20% of the principal tax, and the additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax returns equivalent to 21.9 to 43.8% of the principal tax are included. However, since the total market price of shares owned by one shareholder (the Plaintiff himself/herself as the transferor) and other shareholders at the time of the transfer of each of the instant shares is at least 00 won, it was not known that the transfer of each of the instant shares is subject to capital gains tax, and it is unreasonable to expect the Plaintiffs to report and pay capital gains tax by ascertaining that the transfer of each of the instant shares is subject to capital gains tax, so it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to find this fact and expect the Plaintiffs to report and pay capital gains tax. Accordingly, it is recognized that there is

B) Article 115(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006); Article 178(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007) shall apply to the additional tax for unfaithful payment of capital gains tax for 2005 and 2006. As for the additional tax for unfaithful payment of capital gains tax for 2007, Article 47-5(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007); Article 27-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter collectively referred to as the "additional tax for unfaithful payment") is unlawful for the period from the date following the tax authority’s imposition of additional tax for 0 days to the date of voluntary payment.

2) Determination

A) Whether there exists a justifiable reason

Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting and tax payment, as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intention and negligence is not considered as administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the Act. On the other hand, such sanctions should be imposed with respect to nonperformance of obligations under the tax law unless there are justifiable grounds for not being able to cause the taxpayer’s failure to perform his/her obligations, such as cases where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligations, or where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the fulfillment of his/her obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1622, Apr. 28, 2011).

According to the legal provisions of this case and the Enforcement Decree of the Act, in case where the total market price of the stocks owned by one stockholder and other stockholders as of the end of the immediately preceding business year to which the transfer date of stocks belongs is 00 won or more, the income accruing from the transfer of stocks by one stockholder and other stockholders is clearly defined as subject to transfer income tax. In light of the total market price of stocks owned by the plaintiffs and the mutual relationship between the plaintiffs, etc., the plaintiffs cannot be seen as having known that the total market price of stocks owned by one stockholder and other stockholders is 00 won or more at the time of the transfer of each of the stocks in this case, or it is difficult to expect the plaintiffs to pay transfer income tax by ascertaining that the transfer of each of the stocks in this case is subject to transfer income tax, or that it is difficult to expect the plaintiffs to pay transfer income tax by finding this fact. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B) Whether the principle of excessive prohibition is violated

The purpose of this case’s additional tax provision is to secure the smooth performance of the duty of cooperation imposed under the tax law in order to ensure the smooth tax administration and the fairness of tax burden, and to deprive the taxpayer of the benefit equivalent to the interest that can be gained on the unpaid amount due to the failure of the taxpayer to observe the due date for payment. In addition, the legislative purpose of this case’s additional tax provision is to be justified. In addition, it is essential to impose certain sanctions on taxpayers to achieve that purpose, but it is appropriate to require taxpayers to pay by adding an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the amount of tax to be paid by the taxpayer without

The Additional Tax Clause of this case imposes additional tax by taking into account the short term of the unpaid amount and the unpaid period of time, and thus, forms an appropriate balance between the degree of the taxpayer's breach of duty and sanctions. While the taxpayer could have been able to gain profit as much as the amount equivalent to the interest of the unpaid tax amount during the period of time for the unpaid payment, while the State incurred loss to the national treasury, it can realize the principle of fair tax burden by adjusting it. Meanwhile, the taxpayer who did not have the intention of tax payment can be exempted from the additional tax burden by asserting that there is justifiable reason in the negligence of his duty, and as a result, the exclusion period of the Right to impose transfer income tax is limited within the scope of the imposition period, the additional tax clause of this case also has a device to minimize the infringement of property right.

In addition, the penalty tax provision of this case is an important public interest of securing the effectiveness of the tax law and realizing the tax balance by contributing to the faithful performance of the taxpayer's tax liability, while the taxpayer is at the disadvantage of paying penalty tax due to the above provision, but considering the fact that the tax amount could have been used to make profits during the period of payment, the disadvantage suffered from the above provision is significantly larger than that of the public interest.

Therefore, since the penalty provision of this case maintains a reasonable proportional relationship between the degree of violation of duty and the sanction imposed, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of excessive prohibition.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit on different premises.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit.