1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the judgment as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) above, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant provision is unlawful by deviating from the scope of delegation under Article 94(1)3 (a) of the Income Tax Act.

Article 94 (1) 3 (a) of the Income Tax Act provides that "Large shareholder prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the ratio of shares owned, total market value, etc." Accordingly, the provision of this case specifically provides the scope of majority shareholder in consideration of the ratio of shares owned, total market value, etc., so the provision of this case is legitimate within the scope of delegation in order to achieve the legislative purpose of Article 94 (1) 3 (a) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the provision of this case cannot be deemed unlawful because it deviates from the scope of delegation under Article 94 (1)

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du4394, Nov. 10, 2006). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. Article 157(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27074, Mar. 31, 2016) reduces the scope of relatives who fall under other shareholders as “the lineal ascendant or descendant,” and this is to be applied retroactively to the Plaintiff, as it was revised by reflecting the fact that the relationship of relatives is reduced. According to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff and B’s share price as of the end of 2011 and the end of 2012 does not exceed 10 billion won, and thus, the imposition disposition of capital gains tax on the stock transaction in 2012 and 2013 should be revoked.

In this regard, Article 1 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is applied.