1. Each appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s chief of the tax office is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as in paragraph (2). As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited. The following is added under the title “(5) of the judgment of the court of first instance, 10 pages 7, and 5, following the first instance judgment of the court of first instance.” Article 88(1)8(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302, Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) applies to cases where forfeited stocks occur due to the waiver of preemptive rights, and where the existing stockholder acquires new stocks at a price higher than the market price.

E or G did not incur forfeited stocks because it did not waive preemptive rights, and Hong Kong corporation Q (hereinafter “ Q”) and R (hereinafter “R”) acquired stocks by being directly allocated by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 418(2) of the Commercial Act, and thus, the instant disposition based on the low price of new stocks was unlawful.

"2012No13705" in 19th 10th 19th 10th 19th 19th 19th 201 is "2012Do13705." Each "2012th 17th 10th 10th 11th 17th 17th 17th 17th 18th 201, is "2013." The following is added to paragraph (6) of the first 19th 19th 19th 19th 2th 202.

[6] The Plaintiff appealed from Seoul High Court No. 2014Na6420.

The appellate court accepted the judgment of the first instance as to the plaintiff's primary claim, dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim, and accepted the plaintiff's claim as to the damages from which the amount of recovery was deducted from the amount of KRW 25.98 billion embezzled jointly with E, etc.

On March 26, 2015, the above judgment became final and conclusive by dismissal of the appeal.

[A] 18 pages 18 of the first instance judgment [A] 31.3 on the ground of recognition.