1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's appellate brief as to the plaintiff's additional assertion under paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation

The portion of the revised decision shall be referred to as "unexploited" in the fourth 13th e.g., the decision of the court of first instance.

The second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is the former Corporate Tax Act as the "Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act".

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional argument

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) B’s shareholder, who is an existing shareholder of C, is difficult to raise additional funds under the name of the individual, and instead acquired B’s new stocks, acquired the forfeited stocks of this case through the Plaintiff, which is the SPC in which C 100% invested, and the funds paid by the Plaintiff upon acquiring the forfeited stocks of this case were funds paid by C at the time of the establishment of the Plaintiff or funds raised as collateral B owned by C. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the forfeited stocks of this case, the acquisition of the forfeited stocks of this case is the same as that of the acquisition of the forfeited stocks by C, which is the shareholder of B, in substance. Therefore, deeming this as equal to the allocation of general forfeited stocks by a third party

2) Corporate tax is imposed on a corporate entity that has income as an object of taxation.

However, as the share price B continued to decline after the subscription for new shares, the Plaintiff did not impose corporate tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff accepted the forfeited shares of this case and suffered a big loss.

(hereinafter “Second Claim”). The issue terms of new shares issued on a three-dimensional opportunity should be identical. As such, insofar as B applied the discount rate of 20% from the initial allotment of shareholders, the same discount rate for forfeited shares shall also be applied, and the forfeited shares shall be subject to forfeiture.