44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

1. Details of disposition;

The reasons for this part are as follows: "The court shall accept the corresponding part in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because the reasons for this part are as follows:

"The details of the disposition of the court of first instance (from the third fifth to the fifteenth one)" and "The plaintiff, EAA, BB, andCC (States) have made the following agreements on September 6, 2003 (Evidence A 12; hereinafter referred to as the "the first agreement in this case")." (i) The plaintiff confirms that the ownership of 280,992 shares of theCC (States) has been owned by the 8.5 billion won based on the closing price of September 5, 2003, and promptly delivers it to the ASEAN (Article 2(1)).

② Upon entering into the instant first agreement and entering into the exchange contract on May 14, 2002, the Plaintiff re-transfers 33,994 shares BB (Article 2(2)).

③ On March 14, 2003, after the Plaintiff received 280,92 shares ofCC (PP) from the Plaintiff, the Company stated that the share purchase and sale contract was not made until March 14, 2003. The first agreement was made on March 14, 2003, and that the shares purchase and sale contract was made on March 14, 200. The Agreement was made on March 14, 2003; (B)BB BB shares held by the Company, and (P)B shares 604,386 shares 9,590,206,980 shares; and (B) PP shares 90,000,000 won were purchased on March 14, 200; (3) PPB shares 60,000,000 won were to be retired immediately after being acquired on March 14, 2003; and (4) PPPBCC 90,000 won were to be paid on the shares 1B.

In order to minimize the impact on the PCC (State), the disposal shall be delegated to the PCC (State) financial team (Article 3(2). If the disposal cost exceeds 8.5 billion won, prescribed AA shall pay the Plaintiff the excess cash settlement, and if the price falls short of 8.5 billion won, the Plaintiff shall pay the shortage to the PCC (Article 3(3)).

④ On March 14, 2003, 200, 1,090, 206, 980 won, 1,090, 206, 980 won, 1,090 won, 206, 200 won, 206, 200 won, 200, 200 won, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300 won, 200, 200, 200, 300 won, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200 won, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200 won, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300,000 won, 200).

⑤ At the same time as the conclusion of the first agreement of this case, A and (State)B shall be exempted from the obligation under Article 9 of the Stock Sales Contract Act of March 14, 2003 (Article 4(4)).

After the first agreement of this case, the Plaintiff implemented the transfer procedure for entry into a transfer of ownership for 33,994 shares of BB to ASEAN.

D. (i) part of the first instance court's decision (from the third to the fourth to the fourth to the tenth) shall be as follows:

[h. On October 5, 2004, the Plaintiff, AAB, (State BB, andCC (State) entered into an agreement with the following (A evidence 13; hereinafter referred to as “the second agreement”).

① The Plaintiff is obliged to verify that the ownership of CJ Internet (CJ) shares 425,714 was owned by the Company, deliver to the Company by October 8, 2004, implement the transfer procedure, and pay KRW 1,752,861,00 by October 8, 2004 (A).

2. The matters provided for in Articles 2 through 4 of the first agreement of this case shall be modified to paragraphs (a) through (d) (e) of this case.

③ On March 14, 2003, the second agreement of this case regarding the contents of the instant second agreement and the contents of the instant second agreement were first reached, but the contents of the share sales contract are valid on March 14, 2003 (paragraph (f)).

The second agreement of this case states the first agreement of this case as the "original agreement".

I. On October 8, 2004, the Plaintiff paid 1,752,861,000 won for the settlement of accounts of 1,752,861,000 won for the shares in this case. After the expiration of the period of safeguard for the shares in this case (the expiration of the gold day on October 15, 2004), on October 19, 2004, the CJ Internet (CJ Internet) shares 425,714 shares, and the transfer procedure was implemented).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

1) The transfer of key shares was made in accordance with the exchange contract concluded on May 14, 2002 by the Plaintiff with A.A. On July 26, 2002, A.A transferred the ownership of BB shares to the Plaintiff under the exchange contract. The time of the transfer of key shares in the instant case is July 26, 2002 when the exchange contract was paid.

2) Even if the transfer time of the instant shares is deemed as October 19, 2004, the transfer value should be calculated as of May 14, 2002 at the time of entering into an exchange contract.

B. Determination

1) The term "transfer" under Article 88 (1) of the Income Tax Act means that an asset is actually transferred for price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind in a corporation, etc. regardless of the registration or enrollment of the asset. In calculating gains on transfer of the asset under Article 98, the time of acquisition and time of transfer shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 162 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act based on the above provision provides that the time of transfer shall be, in principle, the date of settlement of the price of the relevant asset. In exceptional cases where the date of settlement of the price is unclear, the "transfer date" is the date of transfer, etc., and in cases where the transfer is made prior to the settlement of the price, the date

Article 5(1) of the Securities Transaction Tax Act provides that the time of transfer of share certificates, etc. shall be determined by Presidential Decree, and Article 2(2) provides that the time of transfer of share certificates, etc. shall be determined by Presidential Decree, and Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities Transaction Tax Act provides that the time of transfer of share certificates, etc. shall be determined by the time of transfer of share certificates, etc. or the time of transfer of share certificates, etc. is delivered or paid in full, except where a financial investment business entity trades in securities or KOSDAQ, or trades, purchases, sells on consignment, or acts as

2) Although the instant exchange contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and JungA, the instant agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff, JungA, (State)BB, andCC (CC). While the instant first agreement partially included the terms and conditions of the instant exchange contract, the terms and conditions of the instant agreement include the guaranteed liability owed by JungA toCC (State) on March 14, 2003, including the guaranteed liability owed by JungA under the Stock Sales Agreement, etc., as of March 14, 2003.

In accordance with the first agreement of this case, the instant exchange contract had been implicitly rescinded by the Plaintiff at the time of re-transfer of shares subject to exchange to Jeong, or was entirely modified by mutual agreement, and the instant first agreement was subsequently modified to the second agreement. The instant transfer of shares at issue was not made pursuant to the instant exchange contract.

"The first and second agreements of this case shall be the date on which the plaintiff has fully performed the obligation under the second agreement of this case between the plaintiff, EA, BB, andCC (State) after transferring the key stocks of this case to EA and again disposing of the key stocks of this case and performing the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation to perform theCC (CC). Therefore, under Article 162(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act with respect to the key stocks of this case, "the date on which the price of the pertinent asset is settled as provided by Article 162(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act" and "the time when the plaintiff receives all the cost as provided by Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities Transaction Tax Act" shall be the date on which the plaintiff, EA, BB, andCC (State) has fully performed the obligation to transfer the stocks of this case even before the date when all the obligations under the second agreement were performed.

3) As long as the instant shares are deemed to have been transferred on October 19, 2004, the transfer value should be calculated on the basis of the time of transfer.

4) The imposition of capital gains tax and securities transaction tax, which the Defendant deemed that the instant shares were transferred according to the second agreement, is lawful.

3. Conclusion