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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 122,464,190 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on April 16, 2013 shall be revoked.

(a) Particulars for capital increase;

(1) The former ○○ on May 3, 2007, a corporation listed on the securities market, AA (AA), a corporation listed on the securities market.

From June 2007, the company was changed to BB, and the company was changed to 'CC' on September 201, 201, and the company agreed to take over the management right of the company from ○○○○○ (hereinafter "the company of this case"). On the same day, the company of this case decided to take over the amount equivalent to 24% of the FFF shares of the limited liability company of Russia, a corporation of Russia, in order to enter into development business, such as genetic exploration and extraction, and passed a resolution of the board of directors on the capital increase with respect to the capital increase for the purpose of raising the fund.

(2) On the other hand, the former Securities and Exchange Act (Law No. 8635 of August 3, 2007, Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

In order to offer 2 billion won or more under Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act, an issuer shall submit a securities registration statement to the Financial Supervisory Commission in accordance with Article 8 of the former Securities and Exchange Act and Article 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 885 of Aug. 4, 2008, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; hereinafter the same shall apply). On May 3, 2007, the company of this case reported securities with respect to the allocation of new stocks to a third party to the Financial Supervisory Commission, but it received an order to submit a corrective registration statement twice from the Financial Supervisory Commission on August 1, 2007, the company did not constitute 9 of the last party to the allocation to a third party and did not constitute 9 of the Securities and Exchange Act and Article 2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2051 of Jan. 18, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply).

0 Purpose of financing: Project funds to promote new projects;

○ Issue price of new shares: 821 won per share (500 won per share)

○ Total amount of new shares issued: 75,194,651,100 won

○ Payment date of subscription money: August 16, 2007

Persons eligible for allocation of new shares: Jeon○○ et al., 51 persons

The full amount of ○ New Stocks issued is expected to be protected by the Korea Securities Depository for one year from August 27, 2007.

(3) The Plaintiff participated in the capital increase with capital increase and thereby, 821 won per share.

The 730,810 shares were accepted.

(b) Tax investigation, issuance of disposition, etc.;

Article 39(1)1(a) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); Article 29(3)1 and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); Article 29(3)1 and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter “the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); Article 39(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by the Korea Exchange as of August 14, 2007; 】 15% of the preexisting shareholders’ profits per share 】 50% of the calculated capital increase 】 1, 146.5%6% of the existing shareholders (5.5%

--------------------------- ------ 3,983 won (Min) 1,467 won

24,535,700 +91,589,100 Shares

(2) On April 16, 2013, the Defendant imposed KRW 13,94,550 (including KRW 6,191,190), KRW 14,941,230 (including KRW 6,610,00) and KRW 93,528,410 (including KRW 41,376,960) on the Plaintiff’s donation as of August 16, 2007 (including KRW 41,376,960) and KRW 122,464,190 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 30, 2013, but the said appeal was dismissed on July 12, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), all or part of Gap evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant capital increase with new shares, which provides that no gift tax shall be levied under Article 39(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is levied on the third party’s capital increase with the “securities offering method” under Article 2(3) of the former Securities and Exchange Act, and the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(2) In assessing the value per share before the capital increase in the method of allocating the third party, the company should make the date of resolution of the board of directors which is the date of the cancellation of rights pursuant to Article 57 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2008-8, Apr. 7, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "securities provision") and Article 57 of the former Regulation on the Issuance and Public Notice of Securities (amended by Act No. 2008-8, Apr. 7, 2008). However,

(3) In accordance with the authoritative interpretation by the National Tax Service (written-946, June 28, 2004), the tax authority: (a) interpreted the ex-rights as the date of publication of the fact; (b) established a practice that has been assessed and imposed on the average closing price of the stock exchange for two months before the date of the resolution of the board of directors; and (c) thereby, constitutes a public statement of opinion by the tax authorities, which is not different; and (d) the disposition of this case, which was made by evaluating stocks on the base date pursuant to Article 29(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, was contrary to the principle of good faith in spite of its unclear meaning and contrary to the clearness of taxation requirements; and (b) it violates the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation, which was adopted only after the said interpretation was abolished.

(4) Even if the principal portion of the gift tax disposition of this case is unlawful, there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiff, who did not report and pay gift tax, by reliance on the authoritative interpretation and practices of the National Tax Service, and reliance on the value of the stocks, and thus, deeming that there was no profit. Therefore, the penalty tax portion is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether an exemption from taxation under Article 39(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act constitutes grounds for exclusion from taxation

Article 39(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that no gift tax shall be levied on forfeited stocks that a stock-listed corporation or Association-registered corporation under the Securities and Exchange Act allocates to a public offering method of securities under Article 2(3) of the same Act. This is the exception that where a corporation allocates new stocks through a public offering procedure under the Securities and Exchange Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes when it issues new stocks and trades among many unspecified people in the Korea Exchange or Association brokerage market, the difference between the market price and the issue price is determined in the process

Article 2 (3) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that "the public offering of new securities shall be recommended under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 2-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that "The new purchaser of securities shall be 50 or more persons who have been solicited to subscribe to new securities in the process of offering new securities under Article 2 (3) of the former Securities and Exchange Act," although the number of persons who are solicited to subscribe to new securities is less than 50 persons, may be transferred to 50 or more persons within one year from the date of issuance of the new securities, and the issuance of new securities shall not be deemed to have been approved by the Financial Supervisory Commission because the issuance of new securities to 3 or more persons who are subject to the public offering of new securities without the consent of the issuer of the securities offering." Meanwhile, Article 8 (1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that the issuer of the securities offering shall not be deemed to have approved the issuance of new securities without the consent of the Financial Supervisory Commission."

(2) Whether there is illegality in calculating the stock assessment value

Article 29 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act explicitly provides that "the calculation of profits under paragraph (3) shall be based on the date of payment of shares," so there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion that the shares should be evaluated on the basis of the resolution date or public notice date of the board of directors.On the other hand, Article 57 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which provides that the issue price of new shares allocated to the plaintiff at the time of capital increase by issuing new shares, shall be increased by delegation of Article 192 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, and Article 84-25

Even if a decision was made pursuant to Article 39(1)1 (a) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the said provision imposes certain restrictions on the issue value of new shares to ensure fairness and transparency of the issuance of new shares, and its legislative purpose differs from that of Article 39(1)1 (a) of the same Act. Thus, the issue value cannot be deemed as “market price” as “market price under Article 39(1)1 (a) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act” (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du21670, Mar. 13, 2014). Accordingly

(3) Whether the principle of good faith has been violated

As seen earlier, Article 29(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act clearly provides that "the date of payment of stock price" shall be the basis for calculating profits accrued from capital increase. Therefore, in light of the fact that the above provisions of the Enforcement Decree are strictly existing, even if there is a public opinion statement by the tax authority contrary thereto, the taxpayer is responsible for the trust and good faith principle, such as the principle of protection of trust. Furthermore, the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be applied solely on the ground that the taxation disposition by the tax authority was conducted by the interpretation of the tax law generally accepted by the taxpayer or by changing the practices of national tax administration, and thus, it does not violate the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion contrary thereto is without merit.

(4) Whether the liability for additional tax payment exists

Under the tax law, additional taxes are administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim. Such sanctions cannot be imposed in cases where there are justifiable grounds for not being able to cause the failure of the taxpayer to perform his/her duties, such as cases where the taxpayer is reasonably deemed to have been unaware of his/her duties, or where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the performance of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13632, Jan. 27, 2005). Meanwhile, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, additional taxes are administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the Act in cases where a taxpayer violates the duty to report and pay taxes as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intent or negligence cannot be considered, and the land or mistake of the statutes does not constitute justifiable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du13, May 23, 2013).

In light of the following: (a) the instant case is deemed to have been donated by the Plaintiff by acquiring the shares of the instant company as seen earlier; (b) the gift tax is obligated to be returned and paid; and (c) the donation of profits from the said person is clearly defined as “the payment date of the gift tax” under Article 29(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, even if considering the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the basic rules of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act or the authoritative interpretation by the National Tax Service, this is merely due to mistake in the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the return and payment of gift tax has justifiable grounds for failing to perform the duty of return

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

A