1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 7 to 9 of the first instance court's 5 pages 7 to 9 of the court's 5th court's 9th court's 9th court's 9th court's 9th

G. The remaining Plaintiffs except Plaintiff G were in the first instance.

Among the disposition imposing gift tax as stated in paragraph (1), each disposition imposing gift tax on August 7, 2009 and August 3, 201 with respect to capital increase issued on August 3, 201 (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 was reduced.

In the case where new shares were allocated for the purpose of capital increase in order to achieve the legitimate business purpose of registration of construction business under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, it cannot be deemed that there was a purpose of tax avoidance separate from the existing title trust in the issue of capital increase.

The Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7733 Decided May 12, 2006 and 2010Du24104 Decided March 24, 201, which cited the following contents as follows, Nos. 11 and Nos. 12, Nos. 1, 13, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 13, 7, 7, and 2010, 201, 6, 11, 6, 11, 12, 1, 12, 1, 2, 2, 3, 201, 2, 2009Du21352, 209Du21352 decided July 14, 201).