1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

Attached Form

The 3,400 shares listed in the list (hereinafter “instant shares”) were completed from March 4, 2014 to the Plaintiff, and from April 6, 2015 to the Plaintiff, each of the transfer procedures of shares was completed from the Plaintiff on April 4, 2015.

B. On June 8, 2015, the head of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office sent to the Plaintiff a “prestigious guide on stock acquisition,” stating that “The Plaintiff acquired the instant stocks from March 2, 2014 at a price significantly lower than the market price, and was subject to a review of gift tax based on the acquisition by transfer at low price. In the case of a gift tax subject to gift tax, a return after the deadline for gift tax was filed until June 18, 2015, and where there are justifiable grounds for low-price acquisition, evidentiary documents are shipped. Where a return was not made after the deadline or when a return was not made or an improper return was made, relevant taxes may be collected through a tax investigation, etc.”

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. As to the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of gift tax liability by asserting that the Plaintiff’s main defense of this case did not have obtained title trust from D, the beneficial owner of this case, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was not subject to a party lawsuit, and that it did not cause apprehensions in the Plaintiff’s legal relationship, and therefore, the Plaintiff did not have any profit to seek confirmation of non-existence of tax liability.

B. The litigation for determining the existence of liability for tax payment and the confirmation of existence of liability for tax payment is a litigation for dispute over the legal relationship itself under public law, and constitutes a party litigation under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Du2765 delivered on September 8, 2000). Meanwhile, there is no legal relationship under public law.