1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Seoul regional tax office conducted a planning and inspection plan of capital gains tax on May 2013. The Plaintiff, a KOSDAQ-listed corporation, acquired 600,000 shares issued (hereinafter “B”) by exercising convertible bonds (hereinafter “instant shares”) (hereinafter “instant shares”) 600,000 shares issued on July 21, 2010, which were 60,000 shares (hereinafter “B”). On March 17, 2010, the Seoul regional tax office confirmed that the Plaintiff failed to file a report on capital gains tax, etc. even after transferring the instant shares to SPV Co., Ltd. on October 6, 2010 and on March 25, 2010, and notified the Defendant of the aforementioned result.

B. On October 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of tax investigation that gift tax is imposed by applying Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10411, Dec. 27, 2010) by deeming that the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s name to D Co., Ltd. and acquired the instant stocks in the name of the Plaintiff at KRW 500 per share.

On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant on November 28, 2014, but received a non-adopted decision on January 9, 2015, and on January 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a revised notification of KRW 85,365,000 for gift tax belonging to the Plaintiff in 2010.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on June 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since E, a spouse of the Plaintiff, arbitrarily acquired the instant shares by stealing the Plaintiff’s name without the Plaintiff’s permission, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the instant shares. 2) The Defendant deemed the title truster of the instant shares as D Co., Ltd., and the actual owner of the instant shares held in title trust to the Plaintiff.