A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating a facility leasing business, etc. under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, was located in seven floors of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government National Building from December 10, 2009 to July 16, 2012.

(hereinafter “the head office of this case”). (b)

From January 4, 2011 to May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired 2,613 vehicles for facility leasing (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), completed registration under the Automobile Management Act by setting the Plaintiff’s place of business to the place of business using the cultivating branch office. The Plaintiff reported and paid the total acquisition tax of KRW 16,133,178,50 to the head of the Defendant Cultivating-gun (the Gyeongnam-do Governor who has jurisdiction over the fleet branch office) as shown in attached Table 2.

C. On May 24, 2012 to June 5, 2012, the head of Seocho-gu rendered a field investigation on the cultivation branch, etc., and the head of the cultivation branch cannot serve as a place of use under the Automobile Management Act because there is no human or physical facility. The place of payment of acquisition tax of the instant vehicle should be the Seoul Special Metropolitan City having jurisdiction over the instant head office. On September 10, 2012, the head of Seocho-gu imposed an imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 16,13,178,50 and additional tax of KRW 5,081,797,430 (hereinafter “instant imposition disposition”).

On November 22, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 30, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to re-examine the current status of the storage, management, use, etc. of the instant vehicle as of the time of acquisition of the instant vehicle and to rectify the tax base and tax amount according to the result.

E. Meanwhile, on September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the acquisition tax already paid to the head of the Defendant Cultivating Gun should be refunded, but the head of the Defendant Cultivating Gun rejected the request on October 26, 2012.

Among them, the portion of acquisition tax indicated in attached Form 2, for which the Plaintiff seeks cancellation, is "disposition rejecting the correction of this case".