1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that the gift tax increased as a result of the transfer of shares by the date of May 2, 2001 and December 31, 2003 is the increased gift tax, with the exception of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act that "the gift tax for the plaintiff Eul 11,969,850, belonging to the year 2004," was excluded from Chapter 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 19,969,850," and the gift tax for the plaintiff B 11,969,850, belonging to the gift tax for the year 204, as the gift tax for the transfer of shares by the date of the court of first instance and December 31, 203, as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment."

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The employees in charge of F and/or the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) affixed the Plaintiffs’ seals or official seals affixed to the Plaintiffs’ seals kept in the office without the Plaintiffs’ consent or permission, thereby forging the instant agreement on the acquisition of the instant shares, and accordingly, the instant transfer was made. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were not aware of the acquisition of the instant shares and the transfer of ownership. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not subject to gift tax, dividend income tax, corporate tax (the secondary liability for corporate tax) through the transfer of ownership, and there is no possibility of avoiding any other tax, and the transfer of ownership was made with a different purpose that is irrelevant to tax avoidance.

B. Determination as to whether title trust was made regardless of the intent of the Plaintiffs, the provision on deemed donation of title trust property in the legal doctrine applies to the case where the actual owner and the nominal owner enter into an agreement or communication and make registration, etc. in the name of the nominal owner in order to transfer or exercise the right. Therefore, where registration, etc. is made unilaterally using the nominal owner’s name regardless of