1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance except for the addition or dismissal as stated below, and thus, it shall accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

(a)in Part 5 of Part 3 of the Judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

F. On October 12, 2016, the court of first instance rendered a judgment revoking the part regarding imposition of the gift tax, which exceeds KRW 86,410,960, among the imposition of the said gift tax, on the ground that the part regarding imposition of the said gift tax was illegal, and that the amount exceeding KRW 86,410,960 among the imposition of the said gift tax was revoked ex officio. In accordance with the purport of the judgment of the first instance court on May 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective disposition revoking ex officio the said portion equivalent to the penalty tax that

B. Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court (based on recognition) No. 6 (based on recognition) added “B No. 9” to the column.

(c) Parts 5, 12 to 16, 5, 5, 5, 12, 16, 3, 6, of the judgment of the first instance.

Third, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant shares were paid in kind by G around June 201, and that the instant shares were paid in lieu of KRW 29,000 per share. However, according to the evidence No. 7, according to the statement of transfer transaction of stock certificates reported to the competent tax office pursuant to the Securities Transaction Tax Act, the Plaintiff purchased 25,000 shares of the non-party company from H other than G on July 5, 201, and the fact that the sales price per share was 29,000 won and the sales price per share was 20,000 won is recognized, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is inconsistent.

3. The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance that ordered revocation of the part exceeding KRW 86,410,960 of the disposition imposing gift tax amounting to KRW 99,080,260, but as seen earlier, the Defendant revoked ex officio the part exceeding KRW 86,410,960 of the disposition imposing gift tax.