1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 2, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 8,800 non-listed shares (50% of the total issued shares) issued by the Plaintiff Company D (hereinafter “instant company”) from the deceased B (CB’s death on August 10, 2013, hereinafter “the deceased”) and paid 10,000 shares out of the new shares issued by the instant company with capital increase. On December 20, 2004, the Plaintiff paid the price to the deceased.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant shares”) shares of 18,800 shares that the Plaintiff acquired as such. (b)

On December 10, 2014, the Defendant assessed the market price of the instant shares at KRW 349,78,00 in accordance with the Supplementary Evaluation Act, including the standard market price, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 59,957,60 and penalty KRW 76,206,109 (=additional penalty tax of KRW 11,91,520 and penalty tax of KRW 64,214,589).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office against the instant disposition, but the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s objection on May 22, 2015.

Accordingly, on July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to maintain a de facto marital relationship with the deceased as he belongs to the deceased, and to assist the deceased’s business and establish the instant company.

However, the deceased treated the plaintiff in a de facto marital life in an unfair manner, and eventually, the plaintiff and the deceased decided to liquidate a de facto marital relationship around December 2004.

In the process, the plaintiff is liable for damages caused by the deceased's illegal acts and a de facto marriage liquidation.