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

The reasons why this Court is used for this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the first instance judgment, the same as the reasons for the first instance judgment and the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O The following shall be added later than the 7th day below the third day:

In particular, since the non-party company discounted 70% of the market price when determining the issue price at the time of capital increase with capital increase, the plaintiff did not participate in the capital increase with capital increase, it was in the situation of property loss due to dilution.

6th below the 8th day to the 7th day above the 6th day shall be as follows:

According to the statement No. 8, where the number of shares subscribed at the time of subscription for new shares through the allotment of shares on January 14, 2005 falls short of the number of shares subscribed, and the forfeited shares occur, it shall be dealt with by the resolution of the board of directors, and the issue price shall be determined at the board of directors in accordance with the provisions on the issuance of securities and the Corporation Act. The Plaintiff appears to have subscribed for all new shares allocated to himself under the circumstance that it could have anticipated that the shares will fall short of the shareholding ratio if some of forfeited shares are not issued. The Plaintiff’s becoming a shareholder holding 3% or more in the process of subscription for new shares during the process of offering for new shares is merely a result of self-determination. As long as the issue price is set lawfully in accordance with the relevant provisions, whether the Nonparty company has made an subscription for new shares, including the concern of dilution of stock value, is a matter of determination by the Plaintiff itself, and thus, the Plaintiff could not sell shares prior to the resumption of the sale, as seen below, even if the Plaintiff held shares more than 3% thereafter, it does not affect the status of the Plaintiff.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of capital increase, the non-party company allocated 50 million shares out of 66 million shares to its insiders, and most of the shareholders allocated 3% of the forfeited shares to avoid capital gains tax by allowing them to be avoided. Unlike the internal shareholders, imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff who became a shareholder holding 3% of the shares as a general shareholder is contrary to tax equity.

B. Determination

Under the statutes, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, a shareholder who owns more than 3%, and did not impose capital gains tax on the shareholder who has less than 3% of the capital gains tax.

3. Conclusion