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

A. The Plaintiff (Establishment, Jun. 25, 2013) acquired each property listed in the separate sheet between July 22, 2013 and August 10, 2016, and around that time, the acquisition tax, etc. was reduced or exempted on the ground that “The property constitutes the real estate acquired by a small or medium start-up start-up enterprise, which was established as of October 25, 2016, pursuant to Article 58-3 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 16041, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter the same).”

B. However, on September 10, 2018, the Defendant imposed the reduced or exempted acquisition tax, etc. (including penalty tax without filing a return) on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have commenced a new business, and it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff expanded the business of the existing business chain B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the existing business chain”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed an objection with the Gyeongnam-do, but on December 13, 2018, a ruling was rendered to the effect that the part of the disposition imposing penalty tax without filing a return should be revoked and that the under-reported penalty tax shall be applied.

(A) The disposition in the separate sheet that remains cancelled as above (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the plaintiff's assertion company and the non-party company are in marital relations, each company is an independent corporation, its main product is different, and only the type of business becomes the same after the establishment of the company.

Since the head office of the two companies was different at the time of establishment, the situation of later relocation to the same address should not be considered.

Although the plaintiff employed the employee of the non-party company, it is only the co-operation of the non-party company.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff Company was established to expand the business of the Nonparty Company is unlawful.

(b) judgment (1).