1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff, a representative director, (hereinafter “instant company”) newly granted 18,000 units of equity (hereinafter “one share”) by increasing capital on December 10, 2014.

hereinafter referred to as "the capital increase consideration" in this case.

2) The Plaintiff acquired only 4,00 shares of 9,00 shares (=18,00 shares 】 5,000 shares x 50% (C’s shares) that could have been acquired by a member of the instant company, and acquired a total of 14,00 shares (=9,00 shares 5,00 shares) that could have been acquired by a member of the instant company (=9,000 shares 5,00 shares) (the Plaintiff paid all investments on the same day).

(2) Plaintiff 1,000 shares (50%) 14,000 shares (50%) 15,000 shares (75%) C 1,000 shares (50%) 4,000 shares (50%) 4,000 shares (50 shares)

B. From February 19, 2016 to July 1, 2016, the Commissioner of the Busan Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation into changes in the number of contribution units with respect to the instant company. The Plaintiff’s allocation of 5,000 shares for forfeited shares with the instant subscription for new shares constitutes a donation of profits arising from the increase in capital under Article 39(1)1(a) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”); and the value of donated property was calculated as KRW 487,830,000.

C. On August 11, 2016, the Defendant notified the Commissioner of the Busan Regional Tax Office of taxation data to impose gift tax of KRW 116,578,430 (= gift tax of KRW 30,012,430 (additional tax)) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On September 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Commissioner of Busan Regional Tax Office on September 20, 2016, but the objection was dismissed on October 20, 2016.

On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the request for review was dismissed on March 15, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7, and Eul No. 1 to 7.