1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. Defendant 5,361,130 won and Defendant 5,361,130 won against Plaintiff A on March 3, 2015.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the court of first instance saw "7 of the judgment of the court of first instance" or "A copy of the disposition of this case concerning invalid transactions under the Commercial Act" as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Whether the disposition of this case is made against invalid transactions under the Commercial Act.

A. It is sufficient to determine that taxable income has a tax-bearing capacity in view of its economic aspect and has a tax-bearing capacity, and the legal assessment of the underlying relationship with which the income was obtained should not be deemed lawful and effective.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu5303 delivered on December 10, 1991, 95Nu7758 delivered on November 10, 1995, etc.). However, if a judicial contract that caused income is legally null and void from the beginning of the contract, and the economic benefit therefrom was entirely returned to the state prior to the conclusion of the contract, the taxation disposition on such income ought to be deemed unlawful.

B. The fact that the sales contract of each of the instant transactions was null and void in the relevant civil procedure that was issued by the Plaintiff winning judgment, based on the above judgment, C entered into a transfer to D around October 10, 2016, and D returned KRW 204,00,000 to C, and C returned the said amount to E on the same day, and E returned the said amount to E on October 10, 2016 and October 11, 2016. The fact that E returned each of the instant employees’ respective shares purchase price to E and the instant employees returned each of the dividends to C on October 12, 2016 and October 13, 2016, and that C returned it again to D is as seen earlier.

According to the above facts, each transaction of this case was legally null and void and its economic interest was fully returned, and the plaintiffs exercised their rights as shareholders, such as exercising voting rights, before returning the above economic interest.