The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Articles 1 (main sentence) and 2 (3) of the former Securities Transaction Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13628, Dec. 29, 2015) are subject to taxation by stipulating that “where the ownership is transferred at a cost due to contractual or legal grounds,” and Article 7 (1) 2 of the same Act is subject to taxation.

Where the share certificates, etc. are transferred in addition to the transfer of the share certificates under the items of subparagraph 1 of Article 3, and the transfer value of the share certificates, etc. can be known, the "transfer value of the relevant share certificates, etc." shall be

Here, “where ownership is transferred at a cost” means a case where the price for the transfer of ownership is paid as a consideration in return for the transfer itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da105621, Nov. 28, 2013). The “transfer value of the relevant share certificates, etc., which serves as the basis for calculating the securities transaction tax, refers to the amount actually agreed upon as the consideration at the time of transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du21614, Jul. 28, 2011). Therefore, even if a third party, other than the transferee, bears a part of the transfer price, if the price for the transfer of ownership itself is the consideration for the transfer of ownership, such actual amount should be deemed as included in the “transfer value of

citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court: (a) citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, concluded a contract between the shareholders of this case, with the content that the gold industry purchases treating construction stocks on the base price calculated on the basis of the rate of return guaranteed by the financial investors, and (b) the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 26,262 per share 24,65,611 of the Treatment Construction Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Treatment Construction”) with financial investors, including the Plaintiff, around 2006, when the five gold Asian or department companies, including the gold industry (hereinafter referred to as “gold industry”) acquire at KRW 244,665,61 per share; and (c) where the price of the Treatment Construction Co., Ltd. fails to reach an annual rate of return (9%) within three years, the Plaintiff purchased the processed construction stocks on December 29,