1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The Defendants at issue of the instant case, around 2007, deemed that Plaintiff A donated each of the above shares to Plaintiff B and C pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same), with respect to the acquisition of shares 13,000 shares issued D in the name of Plaintiff B, shares 10,00 shares issued by Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., and shares 6,00 shares issued by the Plaintiff C in the name of Plaintiff C, the Defendants deemed that Plaintiff A donated each of the above shares to Plaintiff B and C, and determined and notified the gift tax to Plaintiff B and C, the title truster, and the Plaintiff, the title truster, designated and notified the joint and several taxpayers.

(2) The Plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff Company D was merely nominal for the purpose of protecting management rights and stabilizing stock price, and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance and the actual result of tax avoidance. Thus, the issue of this case is whether Plaintiff A was the purpose of tax avoidance in title trust with Plaintiff B and C.

B. On the premise that the court of first instance held the plaintiffs with the burden of proving that there was no tax avoidance purpose, the court of first instance: ① it is difficult to view that there was a circumstance that the management right maintenance is threatened because the plaintiff A held 60% (including shares in a related party) of the shares issued D Co., Ltd. during the period from 2002 to 2010, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there was a situation that the management right maintenance was threatened; ② for the purpose of the stock price management, the plaintiff A cannot find a reasonable reason for engaging in a stock transaction in the name of another party; ② the plaintiff A traded shares in the name of the plaintiff B, E, F, and D, as well as the name of the business partner, for the same period, and ③ the transfer margin of the shares issued D Co., Ltd. traded in the name of the plaintiff B.