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

A. On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired 54,00 shares (which correspond to 90% of the total number of shares issued; hereinafter “instant shares”) issued by an advanced owner of a stock company, which was owned by the advanced owner, in combining the advanced owner of the company (hereinafter “instant merger”) (hereinafter “the instant merger”), thereby becoming an oligopolistic shareholder in the Seosung Pamp.

B. Pursuant to Article 7(5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same), the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired real estate owned by the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 3-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. With respect to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition is lawful on the grounds of the disposition and the relevant laws and regulations, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is deemed lawful. As such, Article 15(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act applies to this case’s acquisition of the instant real estate due to the instant merger. In accordance with the aforementioned provisions, if the base rate for heavy taxation is deducted from the deemed acquisition tax rate of an oligopolistic stockholder, the said rate shall be zero, and the acquisition tax shall not be exempted, and Article 120(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) exempt the acquisition tax on the acquisition of the property acquired through the merger