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

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 0,000,000 on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's argument in the appellate court under Paragraph 2 below. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts to be dried or added.

Part 3 "The land of this case, which is the sole asset of the shares and the sole asset of the AA" in Part 21 of the third part, is "the entire shares of the AA, which are owned as the sole asset of the land of this case".

The phrase "no" in Section 5 of Section 21 is the same as follows: "(The following facts recognized by the statements in the Evidence No. 29 through 31 additionally submitted in the trial, that is, the plaintiff requested the head of Cambodia to liquidate the AA on February 1, 2008, and requested the head of Cambodia to certify the tax situation on February 14, 2008, and on the e-mail sent by the Gangnam to the plaintiff on February 20, 2008, because it had already gone beyond a third party, it shall not be subject to pressure on the plaintiff because it had already gone beyond a third party," and even if it appears that "the agreement was reached at the time of the business trip on March 1, 2008, and the agreement was added as one of the agreed matters on March 13, 2008."

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument in the appellate trial

A. The defendant asserts that ① after the establishment of BB sold AA shares, which are assets owned without any business performance, the debt was finally settled on March 30, 2008, and accordingly was dissolved and liquidated on March 30, 2008 due to Cambodia's local practices. The amount subject to taxation is still the plaintiff's dividend income, and during that process, the contract for transfer of BB shares between the plaintiff and D○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 1, 2008 was prepared formally, and ② even if the date of dissolution and liquidation of BB, which is the cessation of business on July 1, 2008, was not different from the plaintiff's dividend income for the year 2008, and when compared to US exchange rates, it was within the scope of KRW 100 per annum at the time of March 30, 2008.

However, the plaintiff sold all of the shares of BB to ○○○○ on March 1, 2008 and recovered USD 0,000,000 which was invested at the time of establishment of BB on March 4, 2008 as above. In light of these facts, the plaintiff used the phrase "BB representative at the time of preparation after March 4, 2008," i.e., the plaintiff used the phrase "BB representative at the time of preparation of the whole pleadings," and the circumstance that the report on business closure submitted on July 1, 2008 was prepared in the name of the plaintiff and the remaining evidence submitted by the defendant cannot be seen as having been prepared in the form of a share transfer contract between the plaintiff and D○○○○○○○○○○○○, or that the plaintiff acquired the remaining shares as the shareholder of BB on March 208 or the remaining shares as the shareholder of BB on March 1, 208.

B. The defendant asserts that the amount of taxation is a substantial interest income on the plaintiff's lecture ○○ loan.

However, ○○○○ was unable to repay the instant loan to the Plaintiff. On July 10, 2006, the Plaintiff and ○○○○ transferred all of the shares of AAE owned by Kang○○ on July 10, 2006 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff agreed to resolve the Plaintiff’s debt to ○○, etc. with respect to the purchase and development of the land of the fech YG project. Under the agreement, the Plaintiff was changed to BB’s name for 00% shares from Kang○, etc. on January 2, 2007; 0% shares in the name of ○○○; 1.6% shares owned by the Plaintiff as the sole asset of the instant land to the 19-year local taxes on December 2, 2007; 2.0 million U.S. dollars did not appear to have been subject to comprehensive taxation; however, the Plaintiff did not appear to have any justifiable ground for revocation of the tax amount imposed on the dividend income subject to imposition of 90 million U.S.D.

C. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff recognized the amount subject to taxation as capital gains, the disposition of this case is legitimate within the scope of the legitimate tax amount of capital gains due to the transfer of the shares of AA to US$0 million on March 30, 2008, the transfer of the shares of BB to US$0 million on March 1, 2008, or the transfer of the shares of BB to US$0 million on March 30, 2008.

According to the records, the plaintiff argued that the amount of taxation is not deemed as income accrued to the plaintiff or similar dividend income, and even if the amount of taxation is assessed as income accrued to the plaintiff, it shall be deemed as capital gains from the transfer of BB shares held by the plaintiff. It is acknowledged that "the amount subject to taxation" in the preparatory documents, etc. of May 21, 2015 of this case is a premium for the transfer of AAAA shares. Meanwhile, the plaintiff agreed to be paid the price of this case from the actual tax on December 1, 2007 to the local tax office at 0.0 U.S. dollars 30,000,000 U.S. dollars 30,000,000 U.S. shares were transferred or invested within the scope of 0,000 U.S. dollars 30,000, 208,000 U.S. shares were transferred or invested within the scope of 30,008.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.