1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs and the non-party C acquired the land of Chungcheongnam-gun E-ri from the non-party D, who was referred to in June 14, 2004, as a son-ri, as a gift, as a son-ri.

B. On August 23, 2012, the Plaintiffs and C filed a return on capital gains tax on the standard market price by deeming that the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed after the exchange was made after setting the same size as 6,770 square meters of land on part (land with sound indication part) as indicated below among the Eriuri Real Estate donated on August 23, 2012.

Land category (Ei) land category (Ei) BF 962 F BF 962 F BF 962 F G G 948 G G 948 G G G 2,388 I B, 13,240 CJ 24,875 K K 6,70,770 G 18,105 of the instant land category No. 18,105

C. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs transferred the instant land to Nonparty L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and paid each transfer income tax of KRW 1,023,50,000 on the actual transaction value, and KRW 861,619,898 on the conversion acquisition value, deeming that the actual transaction value cannot be confirmed at the time of exchange, the Plaintiffs reported and paid each transfer income tax of KRW 18,975,650 on February 3, 2015 by deeming that the conversion acquisition value cannot be confirmed at the time of exchange.

The head of Hongsung District Tax Office conducted a field investigation of capital gains tax from February 27, 2015 to June 25, 2015, and deemed that the instant exchange transaction between the Plaintiffs and C constitutes the fictitious act, and thus, deemed that the Plaintiffs directly transferred the instant land to the purchaser, and notified the Defendant that the capital gains tax should be imposed. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of each of the capital gains tax, such as the written purport of the claim.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). (e)

The plaintiffs appealed and filed their respective appeals with the Tax Tribunal, but all of them were dismissed on May 2, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute.