2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. The ○ Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Industries”) was imposed by the Defendant for a total of KRW 12,513,630,790, including corporate tax, etc. from 2001 to 206, but did not pay it.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) owned 70% of the Plaintiff’s shares issued by the ○ industry and deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder of the ○ industry as stipulated in Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; and (b) imposed 22 cases, including corporate tax, etc. on the ○ industry from the year 2001 to the business year 2006, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review on July 27, 2007, but was dismissed on March 31, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is not only the actual owner of 20% shares owned by KimA and KimB from among the shares issued by the ○ industry, but also is not an oligopolistic shareholder of the ○ industry since there is no special relationship with KimA and KimB. Therefore, the instant disposition taken by deeming the Plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder of the ○ industry is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The ○ industry was established mainly for the oil sales business on January 8, 1998, and the Plaintiff invested approximately KRW 600 million to KRW 70 million to KRW 80 million to KRW 80 million to ○○ industry. However, the Plaintiff recognized the downcoming of the largestCC’s active oil sales, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to divide the profits from the highestCC and the ○○ industry by 50% each.

2) In addition, the Plaintiff and the largestCC jointly operated the ○ industry, such as in charge of the overall affairs of the ○○ industry with the position of the president and in charge of the business affairs with the customer in the former position.

(iii)On the other hand, from among 30,000 shares of the ○ industry as of the year 2001, the Plaintiff and the largestCC have each 9,00 shares of 9,00 shares, KimD and KimA, but in 2002, 6,000 shares owned by KimD were changed to KimB, and the shareholding status was maintained even on December 31, 2008.

4) Afterward, the Plaintiff was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with labor for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, and the largestCC was sentenced to one year and one year of imprisonment with labor for the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act. The Plaintiff was sentenced to one year in the appellate court.

5) In the course of the investigation process and the trial, the Plaintiff and the MinimumCC stated that the Plaintiff had a 70% share in the ○ industry, and that the largestCC had a 30% share in the 30% share in the process of the prosecution investigation. In particular, the Plaintiff stated that the said 70% share was actually owned in the process of the prosecution investigation, and that the said 30% share was in the name of the Plaintiff, and that the said 20% share was in the name of

(vi)The largestCC is entirely gathering KimB, KimB, and KimD, and there is no room for the general meeting of shareholders to hold the ○○ Industry until the largestCC was dismissed on July 29, 2006, and the highestCC, KimB, and KimA has not received official dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 8, and 9; Eul evidence 13; Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; Eul evidence 2,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Eul evidence 13; Eul evidence 5, 6, 8, and 9; Eul evidence 9; Eul evidence 10-2,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9; the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The plaintiff's 30% of the shares issued by the ○ industry is included in Gap's 5,6,7, and evidence corresponding thereto, but the part of Gap's 8,9 is included in Gap's 1. The plaintiff's investment at the time of establishment of the ○○ industry, ② the consistent statement between the plaintiff and the largestCC in this criminal case, ③ the maximumCC is entirely gathering KimA, KimB, and KimD, ③ there is no data to recognize that the share capital was paid to the ○○ industry, ③ there is no official distribution from the ○ industry, and ④ The plaintiff alleged that the ○○ industry has 70% shares in the ○ industry in a criminal case to protect KimB and KimA, but it is difficult to acknowledge that the 10% of the shares issued by the plaintiff's 20% of the shares are disadvantageous to the plaintiff's 1's 1.3% of the shares issued by the ○○ industry, and there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be more likely to be subject to a 1% of the shares in a criminal case.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.