The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. As to the ground of appeal on constructive dividend, including misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 16(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “The date on which a shareholder receives a dividend under Article 16(1) of the Act shall be the date on which the shareholders’ general meeting or the board of directors’ meeting resolves to retire the stocks (referring to the date stipulated in Article 461(3) of the Commercial Act in cases where the board of directors’ resolution is made)” and Article 13(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19328, Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter the same) delegated by Article 16(2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “The date on which the shareholder receives a dividend under Article 16(1) of the Act shall be the date on which the shareholders’ meeting or the board of directors’ meeting resolves to retire the stocks (referring to

Subject to Article 16(1)1 of the Act, where assets acquired pursuant to Article 16(1)1 of the Act are stocks, the value of the assets shall be based on the market price under Article 52 of the Act at the time of their acquisition.

Comprehensively taking account of the relevant employment evidence, the lower court acknowledged that on July 22, 200, the Asianet Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “APAI”) was the Plaintiff’s shares issued by it on July 2, 200 and determined to retire 60,762,265 shares, including 66,66 shares owned by the Plaintiff and 66,66 shares owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “APAI”), and issued by the Plaintiff in return for retirement of the shares on the same day, the lower court held that the shares issued by the Plaintiff constituted the Plaintiff’s 285,714 shares in return for retirement of the shares, and 95,238 shares in return for retirement of the shares, and that the market value of the shares issued by the LPAI constitutes “108,500 shares per share as at July 21, 200,” and that the Plaintiff and the APAI constitutes the Plaintiff’s shares acquired by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s shares acquired by the 16.