1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a gift tax base return with the content that the Plaintiff received 104,415 shares of the non-listed shares of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) from B, the spouse of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “instant shares”).

B is the wife of D, the representative director of the non-party company.

B. On July 21, 2010, when the non-party company was listed on the KOSDAQ market and the market price of the instant shares increase, the head of the Suwon Tax Office deemed that the Plaintiff received from B the “profit accrued from the listing, etc. of stocks or equity shares” under Article 41-3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 2011); thus, on July 8, 2011, the head of the Suwon Tax Office corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the gift tax amounting to KRW 1,247,681,920 (including additional tax amounting to KRW 247,936,792).

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Suwon District Court (2012Guhap7289) seeking revocation of the imposition of gift tax. However, on February 15, 2013, the said court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Plaintiff received a title trust without the purpose of tax avoidance from B,” and rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff, which determined that the instant shares were donated from B, and that the said imposition of gift tax was lawful.

Although the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with this, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the Seoul High Court (2013Nu10634), which was the appellate court, on February 7, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive upon dismissal of the appeal on June 26, 2014 from the Supreme Court of Korea (2014Du5057) which was the appellate court (2014Du5057).

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court (2010Du12347) rendered a judgment on October 18, 2012 that “it is unlawful to impose penalty taxes by stating only the aggregate amount of penalty taxes without specifying the type, amount, basis for calculation, etc. of penalty taxes,” while proceeding a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of gift taxes.” As such, the head of the competent tax office revoked ex officio the portion of penalty taxes of the previous imposition of gift taxes.

The defendant, who is the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the plaintiff transferred on March 4, 2013.