1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs are children of E.

E received a loan of KRW 6.9 billion from the Seoul Agricultural Cooperative on November 20, 2009, and on November 23, 2009, transferred each amount of KRW 850 million to the deposit account of Plaintiff B, Plaintiff A, C, and D (hereinafter “B”) from the Seoul Agricultural Cooperative on November 20, 2009.

B. On November 23, 2009, the Plaintiffs participated in the capital increase with capital increase issued by the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and acquired the Plaintiff B 28,000 shares, and the rest of the Plaintiffs, respectively, 12,000 shares, and 64,000 shares in total (hereinafter “instant shares”).

C. The Defendants deemed that they received from E the amount equivalent to the acquisition value of the shares of this case [the amounting to KRW 840 million (=28,000 x issue value 30,000 x issue value) x 360 million each of the remaining Plaintiffs (=12,000 x issue value 30,000 x issue value], and thus, deemed that they received a donation, and thus, the Plaintiffs are subject to the disposition of imposition in the attached list (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 24, 2014, but the said appeal was dismissed on August 19, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Party A’s evidence 1, 2, and Party B’s evidence 3 (which includes a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) were to acquire the shares of this case by borrowing the money from the Eul, referring to the acquisition of the shares of this case. The money borrowing certificate was prepared in advance, and the money borrowing certificate was notarized. The funds for acquiring the shares of this case were remitted from the E's deposit account to the plaintiffs' deposit account, which was again remitted to the G deposit account, a limited-liability company which is the related company of F. The disposition of this case under the premise that the plaintiffs received a donation of the funds for acquiring the shares of this case from E was unlawful. 2) In addition, the defendants are equivalent to the acquisition value of the shares of this case in disposing of this case.