Esia Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Jeong Byung-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Regional Tax Office

April 3, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 12, 2010, the defendant revoked the disposition of notification of change in income amount of KRW 18,150,258,728, total sum of the income amount stated in the attached Table attached to the statement against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a KOSDAQ-listed corporation established on August 21, 1987 and engaged in the production and sale of textile products.

B. On May 31, 2006, Nonparty 4, a representative director, the Plaintiff’s major shareholder and Nonparty 4 transferred all of the Plaintiff’s shares 2,232,302 shares and the management rights for the Plaintiff to MM media (hereinafter “MM”) and Spunter Entertainment (hereinafter “MM”) and MM and punch Entertainment (hereinafter “MM”), and on the same day, the Plaintiff entered into an all-inclusive share swap agreement (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”) with the Nonparty Company including the following:

○ Form of share swap

- The Plaintiff becomes a complete parent company that owns all shares issued by the non-party company.

- For this purpose, the shareholders of the non-party company transfer all of their shares to the plaintiff on the date of share swap, and the plaintiff assign new shares to the shareholders of the non-party company

○ Ratio of share swap

- - Shares of the Plaintiff per share of MM 296.614963 Shares, shares of punch, shares of the Plaintiff per share of 729.984245 shares, respectively.

○ General meeting of shareholders approving stock exchange

- July 13, 2006

○ Date of share swap

- August 14, 2006

C. Meanwhile, the share swap ratio is the ratio calculated by evaluating the Plaintiff’s shares as KRW 2,308 per share (the marking below won is omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply), IM’s shares as KRW 684,836 per share, and punch shares as KRW 1,685,151 per share.

D. On July 13, 2006, the Plaintiff approved the instant exchange contract by holding a temporary general meeting of shareholders as stipulated in Article 360-3(1) of the Commercial Act and the instant exchange contract.

E. The shareholders of the non-party company invested in kind all their shares in accordance with the exchange contract of this case on August 14, 2006, and the plaintiff issued the plaintiff's new shares to the shareholders of the non-party company on September 2, 2006.

F. Accordingly, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 7 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) as the shareholder of the Nonparty Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) transferred to the Plaintiff the shares of the Nonparty Company owned by themselves (hereinafter “existing shares”) as indicated below, and received the Plaintiff’s new shares in return therefor.

Non-party 1,680 punchine 1,26,373,634,6384, 915, 60, 660 non-party 1 MM 14,062 4, 171, 6538, 635, 321, 710 punchine 1,007, 729, 511, 066, 880 non-party 5 punchine 1,680 1,680, 226, 3732, 538, 538, 592, 110 non-party 3 punchine 3,2532, 374, 50, 660, 60, 601, 6329, 308, 2984, 209, 20848, 2984, 2094

G. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, etc. constituted a specially related person under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 87(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19815 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired existing shares at a high price by Nonparty 1, etc., who is a specially related person under the exchange contract of this case, pursuant to Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621 of Feb. 22, 2008), the Defendant calculated the market price of the existing shares by the supplementary evaluation method of Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20627, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply).

H. On May 14, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on August 31, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) At the time of entering into the instant exchange contract, the special relationship under the former Corporate Tax Act is not established between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, etc., who is the shareholder of the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1. At the time of the instant exchange contract, Nonparty 1, etc., a shareholder of Nonparty 1, etc., cannot be deemed as exercising de facto influence on the Plaintiff’s management at the time of the instant exchange contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, etc. do not constitute a special relationship under Article 87(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act.

2) The instant exchange contract is based on an all-inclusive share swap under the Commercial Act and the Securities and Exchange Act, which is fair and transparent in accordance with the relevant provisions, such as the special approval by the general meeting of shareholders and the granting of appraisal rights by opposing shareholders in accordance with the merger procedure, and the share swap ratio stipulated in the instant exchange contract is set based on the appraisal report by an outside appraisal organization in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act, such as the Securities and Exchange Act. In full view of the fact that the appraisal by the outside appraisal organization with respect to the Nonparty companies was made adequate in light of the third party’s transaction price and appraised amount, the Plaintiff’

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination on the first argument

1) Facts of recognition

A) On May 31, 2006, Nonparty 4, the representative director of MM, who is the Plaintiff’s major shareholder and the representative director, entered into a contract for acquisition of management rights (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Nonparty 6 and the representative director of MM, and Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, holding the Plaintiff’s shares 2,232,302 shares (32.8% of the total number of issued shares) and management rights with respect to the Plaintiff to KRW 11 billion (4,927 won per share, and small number of shares). The Nonparty Company entered into a separate contract with Nonparty 4 on June 1, 2006 and paid KRW 7 billion for the remainder as follows. The major contents of the instant contract are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 본 계약은 소외 4(이하 통칭하여 ‘양도인’이라 한다)과 엠오엠 및 스펀지(이하 통칭하여 ‘양수인들’이라 한다) 사이에 2006. 5. 31.자로 체결되었다. 양도인은 원고에 대한 보유주식을 양수인들에게 양도하기로 하였으며, 양수인들은 양도인이 보유하는 회사의 주식을 양수받고 회사의 경영권을 인수하기로 하는바, 양도인과 양수인들은 다음과 같이 합의한다. 제1조(계약의 목적) 본 계약은 양도인이 소유하고 있는 액면가 500원의 회사 기 발행 기명식 보통주식 2,232,302주를 양수인들이 양도인으로부터 양수하고, 또한 양수인들이 회사의 경영권을 적법 절차를 통하여 양도인으로부터 인수하는 것과 관련한 제반 사항을 정하는데 그 목적이 있다. 제2조(주식의 양도) 양도인은 양도인이 소유하고 있는 액면가 500원의 회사 기 발행 기명식 보통주식 합계 2,232,302주를 양수인들에게 양도하고 양수인들은 이를 다음과 같이 양수한다. 1. 엠오엠 1,232,302주 2. 스펀지 1,000,000주 제3조 ~ 제6조는 생략 제7조(경영권 이전의 의무) 1. 양도인은 본 계약을 체결한 직후 양수인들이 회사의 경영활동 파악 및 원활한 경영권 인수를 위한 업무를 담당하기 위하여 지정하는 자(이하 ‘경영인수인’이라 함)를 회사의 경영에 참여시켜 임시주주총회 이전까지 회사에 상근하며 회사의 업무를 파악할 수 있도록 지원하며, 경영권 이전을 위한 임시주주총회 이전까지 회사 경영권 행사에 필요한 서류(예적금 통장 및 그 인감, 어음, 수표장, 자사주계좌, 차입 관련 서류 일체 등) 등 일체의 물건과 서류를 경영인수인에게 이전하여 양수인들이 관리함을 원칙으로 하고, 경영인수인의 요청이 있는 경우 양도인은 관련 자료를 신속히 제공하고 경영인수인 업무의 원활한 수행을 위해 각종 편의를 제공한다. 경영인수인은 이사회에 참여할 수 있으나 의결권이나 의사결정권은 보유하지 않는다. 또한, 양도인은 제5조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 잔금이 지급됨과 동시에 회사의 이사 및 감사 전원의 사임서와 사임 등기에 필요한 제반 서류 등을 기재 일자를 공란으로 하여 양수인들에게 교부하여야 한다. 2. 양도인은 본 계약 체결 즉시 경영권 이전 및 정관변경, 기타 양수인들이 요구하는 안건을 결의하기 위한 임시주주총회 개최를 위한 이사회를 소집하여 결의하고, 본 건 임시주주총회의 개최에 필요한 제반 절차를 즉시 이행하기로 한다. 또한, 양도인은 본 건 임시주주총회가 최대한 빨리 이루어질 수 있도록 최대한 협조한다. 양도인은 양수인들이 지정하는 자로 신임이사, 감사 선임 등 양수인들이 요구하는 목적사항이 본 건 임시주주총회에서 신속하고 원만하게 통과될 수 있도록 필요한 제반 조치를 취하여야 한다. 제8조는 생략 제9조(양도인의 의무) 1. 양도인은 본 계약 체결일로부터 임시주주총회에서 새로운 임원진이 구성되어 경영권이 양수인들 또는 양수인들이 지정하는 자에게 인수되기까지 양수인들의 사전 동의 없이 회사로 하여금 다음에 정한 행위를 하도록 하여서는 아니된다. ① 회사 자본금의 증액 또는 감액 ② 회사의 해산, 합병 또는 조직변경 ③ 회사 영업의 일부 또는 전부의 양도, 타 회사 영업의 양수 또는 타회사의 경영의 인수 등으로 회사 상장유지에 영향을 미치는 행위 ④ 사채의 발행 ⑤ 자금의 차입, 채무보증 및 회사 자산의 제3자에 대한 담보제공 ⑥ 기타 회사의 상장유지와 관련하여 중대한 영향을 미치는 행위 2. 양도인은 본 계약 체결 즉시 회사 발행 신주(신주발행금액은 1,999,000,000원 이하로 한다)를 양수인들 또는 양수인들이 지정하는 제3자에게 배정하기로 하는 내용의 신규증자를 적법하게 하여야 한다. 3. 양도인은 본 계약 체결 후 회사의 정관 변경, 이사, 감사의 선임 및 해임, 주식교환 또는 영업양수도 등 경영상의 주요사안이 원활히 추진될 수 있도록 본 계약에 의한 양도주식 이외에 양도인의 특수관계인이 소유하는 회사의 주식에 대하여도 상기 사항에 대한 주주총회 참석 및 찬성에 관련된 위임장을 확보하여 양수인들에게 제출한다. (이하 생략) 제10조는 생략 제11조(계약의 해제 등) 상대방 당사자는 다음과 같은 경우에 본 계약을 해제할 수 있다. ① 양도인이 제5조 제1항에 정한 주권의 인도와 제6조의 보증사항 및 제7조 경영권의 이전의무, 제9조 양도인의 의무 중 어느 하나라도 위반한 경우 ② 양수인들이 제5조 제1항에 정한 양도대금을 기한 내에 지급하지 아니하거나 제10조의 양수인들의 보장사항을 위반한 경우 ③ 양도인측의 사유로 인하여 본 계약의 목적달성에 필요한 이사회 결의(외부평가계약 체결, 포괄적 주식교환 계약 체결, 임시주주총회소집, 소액공모에 의한 유상증자에 대한 것)의 절차 및 내용상의 하자가 있어 본 계약의 목적달성이 불가능해지는 경우, 단 소액공모에 의한 유상증자 및 포괄적 주식교환 계약 체결에 관한 의안 내용 자체에 하자가 있어 본 계약의 목적이 달성되지 못하게 되는 경우에는 예외로 한다. 제12조 ~ 제15조는 생략

B) On the same day, the non-party companies and the non-party 4 drafted a written agreement relating to the instant contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”), and the main contents of the agreement are as follows.

This Agreement was concluded on May 31, 2006 between Nonparty 4 (hereinafter referred to as “A”) and MM and punch (hereinafter referred to as “B”) with the above Party A in relation to the acquisition of management rights. On May 31, 2006, Party B entered into an agreement on acquisition of management rights, and Party B decided to transfer the shares of Party A and the management rights of Company B out of the Plaintiff’s issued shares to Party B. After which Party B entered into a new business division (hereinafter referred to as “new business division”) by M&A, such as merger or comprehensive share swap, and other M&A’s new business division (hereinafter referred to as “new business division”) to ensure that the existing business division may continue to be maintained through the employment succession of its members and new fund support, and Article 1 of the Agreement on Acquisition of Management Rights (Article 2(a) through (4) of the existing business division shall be held under the responsibility of the board of directors’ general meeting of shareholders for the purpose of calculating the share swap ratio from the date of the above agreement on acquisition of shares.

C) In addition, on May 31, 2006, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 3 respectively concluded the instant exchange contract between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company with the content as seen earlier as the representative director of the Plaintiff, MM, and punch, respectively.

D) At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract and exchange agreement, Nonparty 1 owned 6% (1,00 shares) of the total number of MM shares (40.6% (15,600 shares) and the total number of SP issued shares (16,656 shares) as representative director of MM, Nonparty 3 owned 1 as the representative director of MM and stockholders of MW [25.9% (4,320 shares) of the total number of MM shares)], Nonparty 6 owned 70% of the total number of outstanding shares of MM and MW (1,656 shares) and 70% of the total number of outstanding shares of MM [1,680 shares], Nonparty 5 owned 1's dynamic and shareholders of HP (10.1% (1,680 shares of the total number of SP issued shares)], Nonparty 3 as the representative director of MW and 320 shares of MW and 30% of the total number of outstanding shares of MM(2040%), 700% of total number of outstanding shares of MM(200.360%)

E) On May 31, 2006, the date of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff decided to conclude the instant exchange contract by holding a board of directors pursuant to Article 7 subparag. 2 of the instant contract and Article 6 of the instant agreement (the proposal No. 1), and resolved to convene an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders relating to the appointment of directors and auditors (the proposal No. 2). Accordingly, the Plaintiff held a temporary general meeting on July 13, 2006 and approved the instant exchange contract by holding it, and Nonparty 1, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 9, who were designated by the sub-committee pursuant to Article 7 subparag. 2 of the instant contract, appointed Nonparty 10 as the auditor, respectively.

F) On June 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) held a board of directors pursuant to Article 9 Subparag. 2 of the instant contract; (b) decided to issue new shares at KRW 956,000 per share to procure KRW 1,998,040 per share in total; (c) new shares were allocated to Nonparty Company 2; and (d) Mez Corporate Restructuring Association 2, which was designated by the Nonparty Company. The Mez Corporate Restructuring Association 2 paid the above new shares acquisition price on June 5, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

Article 87(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides for “a person who has a special relationship prescribed by the Presidential Decree” under Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act with a corporation and “a person who is deemed to exercise a de facto influence over the management of the relevant corporation, such as exercising the right to appoint or dismiss an officer or determining business policies,” and

We examine whether the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, etc. are related persons under Article 87(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act at the time of the instant exchange contract.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the non-party 6 (M), the representative director of the non-party 1, and the non-party 3 (hununch), on May 31, 2006, entered into the instant contract with the non-party 4 to acquire all shares and the management rights of the plaintiff from the non-party 4, while the non-party company's shareholders transfer all shares to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not enter into an all-inclusive share swap agreement with the non-party company to assign new shares to the shareholders of the non-party 4 (hunchch Contract). The plaintiff was also responsible for the non-party 1's issuance of shares and the non-party 4's comprehensive share swap agreement with the non-party 1, who was the non-party 6's representative director at the time of exercising the shareholders' general meeting. The plaintiff was also responsible for the non-party 1's issuance of shares and the non-party 4's comprehensive share swap agreement to the non-party company.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Judgment on the second argument

1) Facts of recognition

A) MM is an unlisted corporation established on December 30, 2002 and engaged in music record management and online information provision business, and punch is an unlisted corporation established on January 27, 2004 and engaged in music record planning, production, online music record distribution business, etc.

B) From around 2006, Nonparty 1 et al. sought a scheme for bypassing the Nonparty Company, an unlisted corporation, and decided to make a bypass the Nonparty Company by means of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares and comprehensive share swap, etc. on May 2006.

C) Accordingly, on May 27, 2006, the Plaintiff requested a new accounting corporation to assess the share value of the non-party company. On May 31, 2006, the new accounting corporation submitted a written opinion on the assessment of the share swap and transfer ratio (hereinafter “instant assessment report”) to the non-party company. As indicated below, the Plaintiff calculated the assessment value per share of the non-party company and determined the share swap ratio based on it.

Table classification MM punch price contained in the main sentence - - Value equivalent to 1,029,772(won/State) - Value of earnings 1,029,577,255(won/State) - Value of 684,836(won/State) - Value of 684,685,151(won/State) value of 167,431(won/State) value of 316,996(won/State) value of 1,029,772(won/State) 2,597,255(won/State) of - Share swap/transfer value of 684,836(won/State) per share

D) Meanwhile, the new accounting corporation assessed the shares value of the non-party company pursuant to the provisions of Article 190-2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007), Article 84-7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20947 of Jul. 29, 2008), Article 36-12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 885 of Aug. 4, 2008), Article 82 and Article 82 of the former Regulation on Issuance and Public Notice of Securities (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 2008-8 of Apr. 7, 2008), and Article 9 through the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2008-5 of May 11, 2007). In particular, when the non-party company's profits and profits are assessed based on the market share value of the non-party 2 company's profits.

E) The Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company concluded the instant exchange contract by setting the value of the shares of MM as KRW 684,836 per share, and punch value as KRW 1,685,151 per share in accordance with the instant assessment report by the new accounting firm containing the above contents.

F) Meanwhile, the actual sales and earnings of the non-party company for the business year 2005-2007 and the estimated sales and earnings in the instant assessment report are as follows.

Table (units: Won) included in the main sentence of the business year 2005 year 2006 year 2007 year 3,473 11,998 1,912 18,790 business income 340 business income 547 2,990-1,0343,622-141 estimated profit 5442,2435,717 2,639-52,52,639-52

Table (units: KRW 2,610, 17, 5163, 396 25,387 1,323 operating income 428 2,993-1, 1724, 408-378 382,2401, 386 3,209-1,250

G) In 2006, the Plaintiff appropriated the total purchase price (49 billion won) of shares of Nonparty Company acquired under the instant exchange contract as investment shares subject to the equity law. The Plaintiff determined that the estimated recovery value falls short of the book value in the year 2006, and then treated the loss due to the reduction of investment shares subject to the respective equity laws in the business year 2006 and 34.94 billion won in the business year 2007, and then the book value of the above shares as of the end of 2007 is merely 548 million won (as of the end of 2007).

H) Regarding the promotion of bypass listing in the past by Nonparty 1, etc.

(1) In 2006, Nonparty 1 et al. decided to list the non-party companies by means of the acquisition of shares and the comprehensive exchange of shares of the UNNE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HE”) and requested the same accounting corporation to assess the value of the non-party company’s shares.

(2) On March 21, 2006, Jungdong Accounting Corporation submitted a report on appraisal of the stock value of the non-party company to the UNFCCC. The estimated sales and profits of the non-party company in the business year 2006 and 2007 are as follows.

Table contained in the main sentence (unit: million won) 2005 year 2006 year 2007 year 2007 year 3,473,648 4,093 operating profit 547 236 256 estimated profit 544 199

Table contained in the main sentence (unit: million won) 2,610 2,510 2,705 business year 2006 2,610 2,705 4287 97 3827 85 83

(3) Although Nonparty 1 et al. consulted on the share swap rate on the basis of the above report, the above round-up plan was nonexistent because it did not reach an agreement.

I) As to the issuance of capital increase shares by the non-party company

In order to raise funds to acquire the plaintiff, the non-party companies held each board of directors around May 2006, and conducted capital increase by issuing new shares as follows to raise a total of KRW 10,977,050,000.

MMM on May 4, 2006 2,500 625,000 1,5600 1,562,562,500,500,000 MM on May 4, 2006 4, 156 875,000 3,636,5000 2,40000 2,40000,000 2,4000,000 2,400,000,000 on May 10, 2006, 394 325,0003,378,050,000,000 10,000,000 on May 10, 2006

(j) Details of Nonparty Company’s shares

After the conclusion of the instant exchange contract, the details of the shares of Nonparty Company are as follows.

On July 4, 2006, Nonparty 11, Nonparty 14 675 296, 297 July 5, 2006, Nonparty 11, Nonparty 1525 26, 667 August 11, 2006, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 127 472, 4141 August 11, 2006, Nonparty 12 (ju), Nonparty 12, 934 pune on August 11, 2006, Nonparty 12, 363, 934 pune on July 5, 2006, Nonparty 13, Nonparty 13, Nonparty 13, Nonparty 15726, Nonparty 65, Nonparty 74 pune on July 13, 2006, Nonparty 197, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 36, 20786, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 76, 2978.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 3, 7, Eul Nos. 3, 4, 13, 14, 16, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that a corporation's wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the same Act does not follow a reasonable method of a normal economic person in the transaction with a person with a special relationship, but rather evades or reduces the tax burden by abusing the forms of transaction listed in each subparagraph of Article 88 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the taxation authority is deemed to have the income objectively and reasonably reasonable and reasonable by the method stipulated in the law. In light of the economic person's viewpoint, it applies only to a case where it is deemed that the person with the authority to impose tax denies it and disregards the economic rationality due to disregarding the calculation of an unnatural and unreasonable act. Determination of whether the economic rationality exists shall be made based on whether the transaction lacks economic rationality in light of sound social norms or commercial practices (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7993, May 11, 2006, etc.).

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 본 인정 사실 및 변론 전체의 취지를 통하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실 및 사정들, 즉 ① 소외 1 등이 원고의 지분인수 및 포괄적 주식교환 등의 방식으로 비상장법인인 소외 회사들을 우회상장하기 위하여 소외 회사들이 소외 4로부터 그 소유의 원고 주식 및 원고의 경영권을 양수한 다음 원고와 이 사건 교환계약을 체결한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 이 사건 교환계약상의 주식교환비율은 외부평가기관인 신정회계법인이 작성한 이 사건 평가보고서의 소외 회사들 주식의 주당 평가액을 기초로 산정된 것인데, 이는 일반적인 회계감사기준에 따른 감사와 달리 소외 회사들이 제출한 자료가 진실하다는 전제하에 행하여진 것이고, 신정회계법인은 이에 대하여 일체의 의견표명 및 보증도 제공하지 않고 아무런 책임도 지지 않겠다고 하면서 작성·제출된 것이어서 그 신뢰도가 그다지 높다고 보기 어려운 점, ③ 더구나 신정회계법인은 소외 회사들의 주식 가치를 평가함에 있어 소외 회사들 담당자인 소외 10·소외 9와의 면담을 통하여 소외 회사들의 2006 및 2007 사업연도의 추정매출액을 산정하였는데, 소외 10·소외 9는 소외 회사들이 원고와 포괄적 주식교환을 하여 우회상장을 하면 투자자로부터 자금을 유치할 수 있음을 전제로 한 추정매출액 자료를 신정회계법인에게 제공한 것으로 보이는 점(포괄적 주식교환을 통한 우회상장을 할지 여부와 적정한 주식교환비율을 결정하기 위한 자료로 삼기 위하여 소외 회사들 주식가치를 평가함에 있어서 우회상장에 따른 자금 유치를 전제로 추정매출액을 산정한 것은 그 전제가 잘못된 것으로 보인다), ④ 신정회계법인이 이 사건 평가보고서에서 산정한 소외 회사들의 2006 및 2007 사업연도의 추정매출액은 소외 회사들의 2005 사업연도 실제 매출액과 비교하여 엠오엠의 경우 345% 및 541%, 스펀지의 경우 671% 및 972% 각 증가된 수치인데, 이러한 추정매출액은 그 당시 상황에 비추어 실현가능성이 없어 보이는 점(2006 사업연도 1월부터 4월까지의 실제 매출액은 엠오엠의 경우 8억 8,200만 원, 스펀지의 경우 5억 8,100만 원에 불과하였고, 이 사건 평가보고서 작성일 당시에도 달리 매출액이 급등할 만한 특별한 상황이 없었음에도, 소외 10·소외 9는 관련 계약서 등 객관적인 자료에 근거하지 않은 단순히 자신들이 예상하는 매출액을 신정회계법인에 제시하였고, 신정회계법인은 이에 대하여 별다른 검토 없이 이를 기초로 이 사건 평가보고서를 작성한 것으로 보인다), ⑤ 결과적으로 엠오엠의 경우 예상 매출액은 2006년의 경우 실제 매출액의 6배 이상, 2007년의 경우 55배 이상 과대 평가되었고, 예상된 당기순이익은 2006년 약 22억 원, 2007년 약 26억 원이었으나 실제로는 2006년 약 57억 원, 2007년 약 5,200만 원의 당기순손실이 발생하였고, 스펀지의 경우 예상 매출액은 2006년의 경우 실제 매출액의 5배 이상, 2007년의 경우 22배 이상 과대 평가되었으며, 예상된 당기순이익은 2006년 약 22억 원, 2007년 약 32억 원이었으나 실제로는 2006년 약 13억 원, 2007년 약 12억 원의 당기순손실이 발생하여 현격한 차이가 있는 점, ⑥ 위와 같이 소외 회사들의 2006 및 2007 사업연도의 추정매출액이 과거 매출액과 비교해 볼 때 급등한 것으로 나타나고, 불과 2개월 전에 평가하였던 정동회계법인의 평가보고서와 비교해 볼 때에도 큰 차이가 나타남에도 원고는 이에 대하여 검토를 하거나 다른 평가기관의 평가를 받지 않고, 만연히 이 사건 평가보고서에서 제시된 주식교환비율대로 이 사건 교환계약을 체결한 점(이 사건 합의서 제6조에 따르면 소회 회사들이 주식교환비율을 산정하기 위하여 필요한 회계법인의 평가보고서를 원고에게 제공하면 원고는 이에 필요한 이사회를 열고 이를 승인하도록 되어 있어, 소외 회사들 주식에 관한 평가가 소외 회사들의 주도로 이루어졌고 원고는 형식적으로 이사회를 열고 이 사건 교환계약을 승인한 것으로 보인다), ⑦ 소외 회사들이 2006년 5월 초경에 한 제3자 배정방식 유상증자의 주당 발행가액은 신정회계법인이 평가한 소외 회사들의 1주당 주식가치의 1/2에도 못 미칠 뿐만 아니라 그 납입대금을 원고의 경영권 인수 자금으로 사용할 것을 전제로 한 신주발행이므로, 이 사건 교환계약 체결 당시 소외 회사들 주식이 적정하게 평가되었는지 판단하는 비교자료로 삼기도 어려운 점, ⑧ 이 사건 교환계약 체결 이후 소외 회사들 주식의 거래내역이 있기는 하나, 이는 이 사건 교환계약이 이행되어 원고의 신주를 받을 것을 전제로 한 거래이고, 이와 같이 거래된 주식은 소외 1 등이 향후 우회상장시 보호예수 처분제한에 대비하여 조기에 처분할 목적으로 타인 명의로 명의신탁한 주식으로도 보이므로, 이 사건 교환계약 체결 당시 소외 회사들 주식이 적정하게 평가되었는지 판단하는 비교자료로 삼기는 어려운 점 등을 종합해 보면, 원고가 이 사건 교환계약상의 주식교환비율에 따른 가액으로 소외 1 등으로부터 기존주식을 양수한 행위는 건전한 사회통념이나 상관행에 비추어 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 거래행위로서 부당행위계산 부인 대상에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Il-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-dong