1.The judgment of the first instance court shall be modified by reflecting the expansion and reduction of claims in the trial as follows:

The defendant.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits of the case is identical with the judgment of the court of first instance on “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Determination on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits of the case,” thereby citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the concept of the Plaintiff’s distribution of the omitted dividend amount equivalent to the ratio of each share out of the amount of the income omitted from filing the import declaration from 2001 to 2005, with the remaining C shareholders, which is the dividend of the omitted dividend amount equivalent to the ratio of each share out of the amount of the income omitted from filing the import declaration. It is the concept compared to the regular dividend amount that

B. The division was made.

After all, C filed a revised tax return on corporate tax, value-added tax, etc. for each of the above business years on June 2006 and calculated the total of 5,474,583,00 won for each of the above business years. The defendant must pay to the plaintiff 985,424,940 won (=5,474,583,00 won x 0.18) equivalent to the share ratio (18%) owned by the plaintiff among the above 5,474,583,00 won under the business agreement of this case.

(2) The Plaintiff’s failure to make an import declaration exceeds the above amount of KRW 5,474,583,00 for each of the above business years and the above amount in terms of the period and amount, and the Plaintiff seeks to pay the above amount as a partial claim.

Judgment

1) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, in the event that the Defendant is a shareholder holding 85% of C shares and is paid dividends from C, the Defendant must pay dividends equivalent to the share ratio to the Plaintiff according to the instant business agreement. However, the evidence Nos. 8 through 10 (including the branch number, hereinafter the same shall apply) is included in the instant

According to the purport of each entry and pleading, the Defendant, D, and E, a shareholder of C, have omitted the import declaration from 2001 to 2005 as indicated below, thereby raising the foreign capital, and the amount of the income omitted from such declaration is the ratio of each share.