1. The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs participated in the allocation of forfeited stocks issued by the company start-up business investment company E (hereinafter “E”), which was established on December 21, 2001, by F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”), on July 15, 2005 (hereinafter “F”); the above company is an unlisted corporation at the time of the instant case; G and another corporation, which changed trade name to F after the merger with G Co., Ltd. on May 21, 2008, and were allocated F shares to Plaintiff A, B, and C, and Plaintiff D, respectively, with the face value (5,00 won per share).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant forfeited shares”). (b)

After that, Plaintiff B and D participated in the allocation of capital increase to a third party that was conducted by F on August 17, 2005 and received the allocation of F shares to the face value (5,000 won per share) 1,527 shares in Plaintiff B, and 3,055 shares in Plaintiff D respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant third party allocation”). (c) The allocation of the instant third party.

The Defendants assessed the value per share prior to the capital increase as 20,000 won for the portion of forfeited stocks and excess allocation at the time of the third party allocation, and determined and notified the Plaintiffs of the aggregate amount of KRW 28,608,690,00 in addition to the gift tax, as shown in the attached tax list of attached tax 1, on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ low-price under Article 39(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”); and that the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule thereof have obtained the gift tax due to the capital increase.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 1” and the disposition of imposition on allocation by a third party is referred to as “instant Disposition 2”.

The plaintiffs filed their respective appeals with the Tax Tribunal on October 6, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed all their appeals on December 31, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence of 15 to 22 (including branch numbers for those with provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence of 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related Acts and subordinate statutes;