2. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

Along on May 3, 2005, Lypt Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “company”) was established for the purpose of housing construction project, and the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1,2, and 3, the representative director, owned 25,000 shares (25% of shares) respectively. Nonparty 3 paid 4,500 million won to the company in relation to the acquisition of shares, and transferred each share in common (1,2,3 omitted) on the land located in the name of Nonparty 4, the wife on August 12, 2005, in the name of Leecheon-si (1,2,3 omitted) and (4 omitted).

On June 15, 2006, the Plaintiff gave up all the rights invested by Nonparty 3, and paid KRW 25,000 to Nonparty 3 for the transfer of the shares owned by Nonparty 25,000 (hereinafter “instant shares”) but the down payment KRW 100 million on the day, the remainder KRW 2.3 billion on the day, and the agreement was made to pay the funds from the contractor at the first date (hereinafter “instant agreement”) out of the time when the funds (PF) are settled from the contractor or three months ( September 15, 2006).

A company has purchased land to be used as a business site. On November 29, 2006, the value of the land on the account book acquired by November 29, 2006 was KRW 8,157,833,820. On November 30, 2006, the company executed KRW 14,467,661,90 in total, and the value of the land on the account book was KRW 22,625,495,720 (=8,157,83,820 + + KRW 590,00 + KRW 137,590,000 + KRW 137,590,000 on the account book. On the same day, the company paid all the stock price under the agreement by remitting to Nonparty 3, 14:18,000 on the same day.

5) The remaining payment hours of the account books included in the main sentence of 3 non-party 643,59,000 2,000 14: 70,000 145,200 440,000 2,00 1,197,050 197,050 30,000 30,000 715,272,000 298,00 29,000 30,000 14,00 70,000 298,80,80,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 70,000 140,000 7,000 7,000 16,005,00 16,06,00 9,000

The detailed statement on the change of stocks and other stocks submitted by the company to the head of Leecheon Tax Office (hereinafter “detailed statement on the change of stocks”) states that on June 29, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired 25,00 shares from Nonparty 1, and 75% of the total shares from Nonparty 3 on November 30, 2006, respectively, and owned 75% of the shares. The Defendant assessed that the Plaintiff acquired the shares in this case and became oligopolistic shareholders of the company, and determined that the Plaintiff became an oligopolistic shareholder of the company, and accordingly on July 10, 2009, pursuant to Article 105(6) of the Local Tax Act, imposed the additional tax on the Plaintiff on July 30, 2006, including the amount of 22,625,49,121,790 won equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share ratio (75%) as of November 30, 2006 (=22,625,495,7205) and 30837.7.36

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the whole purport of pleading

2. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reason why this court is used with respect to “2.3. Judgment of the plaintiff, 3.0 (A. (b) the time when the plaintiff becomes an oligopolistic stockholder, (c) the primary argument and the first preliminary argument” is as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance (the third to the second to the second to the second to the second to the date when all remaining amounts are paid, on November 30, 2006, at the time when all remaining amounts are paid in full), with the exception that “as of November 30, 2006, at the time when all remaining amounts are paid in full,” among the seventh to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to the same effect as “as of November 14:18, 2006, at the time when all remaining amounts are paid in full.”

3. Determination on the second preliminary assertion

(a) Objects of taxation of acquisition tax;

According to Article 29(1)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8138, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same), the obligation to pay acquisition tax is established when acquiring real estate, vehicles, etc. objects of taxation, and according to Article 105(6) of the same Act, when acquiring corporate stocks and becomes an oligopolistic stockholder, the obligation to pay acquisition tax shall be deemed to have been acquired real estate, vehicles, etc. owned by the relevant corporation. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay acquisition tax on the object of taxation already acquired by the company as at the time when the Plaintiff becomes an oligopolistic stockholder ( November 30, 2006). The Company paid the balance of the business sites stated in Table 1, 2, 5, and 6 before the Plaintiff becomes an oligopolistic stockholder. Since the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the business site stated in Table 7, each of the above business sites shall be included in objects of taxation deemed to have been acquired by the Plaintiff.

According to Article 78(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19817, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same), where an existing stockholder who is not an oligopolistic stockholder first becomes an oligopolistic stockholder due to the acquisition of stocks or the increase in capital, etc., all stocks owned as of the date on which he/she becomes an oligopolistic stockholder shall be deemed to have been acquired and deemed to have been acquired. Article 73(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree provides that where acquisition tax is acquired by succession at a cost with respect to the acquisition time, the acquisition shall be deemed to have been acquired on the actual payment date, the balance payment date under contract, and the registration date (if a registration is made before the date of prohibition of payment), rather than “time”, it shall not be interpreted as determining the time or time of acquisition by an oligopolistic stockholder as at the

① The former Local Tax Act provides that “when acquiring taxable goods,” and “when becoming an oligopolistic shareholder,” and the term “time” is generally used in a sense that goes beyond a simple date and includes a specific time.

(2) The scope of acquisition tax burden varies depending on the ex post facto relationship between the time when the oligopolistic stockholder becomes and the time of acquisition, and there is no reasonable ground to determine the ex post facto relationship with the simple date, and there is no legal ground to recognize it.

③ Article 78(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that when a person becomes the first oligopolistic shareholder due to the increase in the shares held by him/her, all the existing shares and increased shares shall be determined by adding up the existing shares, and Article 73(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree merely presents the standards that can be recognized as the time of acquisition in the course of continuous acquisition for consideration from the conclusion of a contract to the registration and record thereof. No provision does the purport of limiting the term “time” under the former Local Tax Act to the meaning “day”.

(b) Acquisition tax base;

According to Article 111(4) of the former Local Tax Act, a person who becomes an oligopolistic stockholder shall report the tax base amount and other necessary matters to the value equivalent to his/her own stocks ratio among the total value of real estate and vehicles owned by a corporation, etc., and where no return or return value is indicated or the return value is below the tax base amount, the head of a Si/Gun shall impose acquisition tax on the tax base amount calculated according to the above calculation method on the basis of the total value of assets subject to acquisition tax based on the settlement of accounts and other books of the corporation concerned. Where a tax base is calculated on the basis of the total value of assets on the corporation, settlement of accounts and other books, the tax base amount shall be calculated on the basis of the book value at the time of acquisition (see Supreme Court

According to the company accounting books, among the business sites acquired until November 29, 2006, the value of the business site acquired by the Plaintiff until November 29, 2006 is 8,157,83,820 won, and among the business sites acquired on November 30, 2006, the value of the business site acquired by the Plaintiff before becoming an oligopolistic shareholder is 4,307,534,300 (=45,049,200 +40,400 +40,000 +43,595,100 +100,050 +62,100,000 +62,215,000 +17,000 +17,000 +17,000 +35,000,000 +350,000 +380,000,0000 +380,000 of the acquisition tax base amount is 306,53630,540.36

(c) Reasonable tax amount;

The tax amount calculated with the tax base of KRW 9,349,026,090 is the total of KRW 296,438,90 (=acquisition tax of KRW 275,871,050 + special rural development tax of KRW 20,567,850).

Additional tax (2) 37,396,100 additional tax (2 x 918 days x 3/100) 51,494,430 principal tax (3=2.1) 18,69,050 principal tax (3=2.0.1) 186,980,520 x 0.02) 186,980,520,871,050 ; (2) 37,396,100 additional tax (2) x 918 x 3/100) :430 principal tax (3=2.1) 18,698,050,567,850 ; and (3) 1,869,80

Of the instant dispositions, the part exceeding KRW 296,438,90 is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified only for the above excessive part. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair based on its conclusion. The part against the plaintiff falling under this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the above revoked part of the disposition of this case shall be revoked. The remaining appeal

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)