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

A. The Plaintiffs, Nonparty B, and tinCC held 37,200,00 shares (60% shares) as shareholders of Nonparty D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) who are engaged in the Housing Construction and Sales Business, etc., but the Nonparty Company decided on August 7, 2006 to implement capital reduction by means of paid retirement for the shares of 37,200 shares owned by the Plaintiffs, ParkB, and tinCC, and on September 9, 2006, determined the value of the Nonparty Company as 60 billion won (i.e., 60 billion wonx 60%x 1/37,200) and implemented capital reduction for the above 37,720 shares (hereinafter “capital reduction”).

B. From September 16, 2006, which was the date of receiving capital reduction from the Plaintiffs, ParkB, and Dai-CC, from September 16, 2006 to March 31, 2010, which was the date of completion of the housing project (hereinafter “the instant interest”), the amount of KRW 7,645,807,00, which was the date of completion of the housing project, and the amount of KRW 18.6 million for the acquisition of stocks, shall be deducted respectively, and the remaining amount of KRW 28,168,193,00 for the instant capital reduction, the Defendants filed a comprehensive income tax return. However, on September 1, 2008 to December 1, 2008, the Defendants reported the amount of the instant interest not deducted from the capital reduction, and reported the amount of KRW 35,81,00,000, and the amount of income tax for 2006 and 200.

C. After that, on December 28, 2010, the head of the tax office at Daegu District Tax Office determined that ParkB was the Plaintiff, and that the actual owner of shares in ParkB was the Plaintiff, and revoked ex officio the imposition of global income tax of 393,679, and 640 won for 206 on 28 December 2010, and at the same time, the Plaintiff LBB’s dividends of 1,401,732, and 00 won for 1,406 global income tax for 206 and 30.5 global income tax for 205, and the Defendants were the Plaintiff’s 206, 306, 306, 206, 306, 206, 306, 306, 206, 306, 206, 306, 306, 206, 306, 201.

D. Plaintiff LA filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 18, 2008, which was dismissed on September 16, 2009. Plaintiff KimE filed a request for review with each National Tax Service on March 17, 2009, but all of the remaining Plaintiffs were dismissed on June 9, 2009.

[Ground for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 12, and 3-1, 2, 13, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 12, and Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 13, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 13, 13, 8-1, 1-2, and 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings. The plaintiffs' assertion is as follows.

On August 7, 2006, the Plaintiffs agreed to receive the amount after deducting the interest of this case from the amount of the capital reduction of this case. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful in light of the substance and tax principles, since the instant disposition did not deduct the interest of this case, even though it received the amount after deducting the interest of this case.

3. Related statutes;

Attached 2 is as shown in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On August 7, 2006, the non-party company decided to reduce the amount of 37,200 shares equivalent to 60% of the total number of shares issued at a special shareholders' meeting to 967,742 won per share, and publicly announced it in daily newspapers.

(2) On August 2006, Plaintiff LA and Kim Jong-soo agreed to receive capital reduction payment under a loan agreement between the non-party company and the new bank. However, the interest of this case was deducted.

(3) The Plaintiffs received the remaining amount from the non-party company after deducting the instant interest accrued from the capital reduction price.

(4) At the time of preparing the financial statements in 2006, the non-party company deemed that it was donated to the instant interest holders by the Plaintiffs, and accounted as assets increase profit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings was determined.

(1) According to Article 17(1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”), the value of the money and other property acquired by the shareholder due to the retirement of stocks or the reduction of capital shall be deemed to have been distributed to the shareholders, and it shall be the income generated during the pertinent year. According to Article 46(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007), in the case of fictitious dividend, the date on which the decision on the retirement of stocks, the reduction of capital, or the change of the occupation of capital has been made,

(2) The above facts are as follows. (1) The plaintiffs agreed to deduct the interest of this case between the non-party company and the non-party company separately from the resolution to reduce the capital of the provisional shareholders' meeting. (2) The resolution of the provisional shareholders' meeting of this case and the daily publication of the daily publication of the non-party company are stated only as KRW 967,742, and the non-party company did not state all the interest of this case. (3) The non-party company's balance sheet and the profit and loss statement that the non-party company accounts for the interest of this case as assets increase income, and (4) the non-party company's shareholders' general meeting of shareholders agreed to deduct the interest of this case from the capital reduction amount of the non-party company, and thus the contents of the above resolution cannot be changed, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs exempted the non-party company from the interest of this case from the capital reduction amount. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party company did not deduct the interest of this case is legitimate.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.