Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Global Law Firm, Attorneys O Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Leecheon Tax Office and one other

May 25, 2007

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Guhap3173 Decided May 17, 2006

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition of imposition of KRW 1,12,352,00, and KRW 101,786,180, and KRW 101,786, and KRW 180, which was made against Plaintiff 1 by the director of the court of first instance on September 9, 2003, and each disposition of imposition of KRW 1,036,926,580, which was made against Plaintiff 2 on September 1, 2003 by the director of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "61,120 shares" in Part 4 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "60,120 shares"; "10,00 shares of the second company" in Part 10 shall be "after entering 10,00 shares in the securities account of the second company in the name of the plaintiff 2"; "9, 203. 5" in Part 13 shall be "9, 203"; "40,00 shares were acquired on April 12, 202" in Part 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be deemed to fall under "4,00 shares" and "the above 200 shares were returned to the third company within the deadline of return of the second court's shares" and "the second court's order shall not be deemed to fall under "the second court's order to return the shares to the third party," and "the second court's order shall not be deemed to fall under "the second court's order to return the above shares" No. 18. 18. . .

2. Parts in height:

3) According to the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, 4-1, 68, and 20 evidence Nos. 1, 14-1, 68, and 14-20, respectively, the address column for the application for the opening of a securities account in the name of the plaintiffs is respectively indicated in the non-party 1's address, "Seoul Gangnam-gu Dordong (Seoul Dordong 1 omitted)," and the telephone number column is the non-party 1's address, and the pen is the non-party 1's body, and the non-party 1's seal is affixed to the application for the opening of a securities account in the name of the plaintiff 2's name on April 22, 200, it is difficult to find that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was any signature of the non-party 1 in each application for the opening of securities account in the name of the plaintiff 1's name on Jan. 29, 2001.

4) The Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 2 were listed in the Plaintiff 1’s name, Nonparty 1’s name, Nonparty 1’s name, Nonparty 2’s cell phone number and Nonparty 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 2’s cell phone number and Nonparty 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 2’s cell phone number and 14-68, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 2’s testimony at the first instance court, Nonparty 2’s name, Nonparty 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 2’s cell phone number and 0. The Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 2 were indicated on the Plaintiff 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 2’s cell phone number and indicated on the Plaintiff 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 1’s cell phone number and indicated on the Plaintiff 1’s cell phone number and Nonparty 2’s cell phone number and indicated on the Nonparty 1’s cell.

5) Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)