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

A. On March 30, 1992, the Plaintiff entered into a corporate sales contract with B, as the representative director and the transferor, to acquire all of B’s shares, assets, management rights, and sales rights as the representative of B (hereinafter “B”) as of March 30, 1992.

B. The status of changes in shares pursuant to B’s list and detailed statement of changes in shares, etc. after the conclusion of the above corporate sales contract is as listed below.

Plaintiff

D E EF (Nam) 25% 25% 7,500% 7,500% 25% 7,500% 25% 7,500% 25% 7,500% 25% 7,500% 7,500% 7,500% 7,500% 50% 7,500% 25% 25% 7,500% 50% 7,500% 50% 7,50% 7,500% 7,500% 7,505% 25% 7,505% 25% 25% 200.15,000% 7,50% 7,500% 7,505% 205% 205% 30,19.30%

C. On August 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) owned 30,00 shares, which are 100% of shares issued by the Plaintiff by acquiring shares of 25% from G and H, the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11617, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) Article 7(5) of the former Local Tax Act; (c) Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; and (d) Article 47 subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on Local Taxes (Amended by Act No. 11616, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Act on Special Rural Development and Fisheries calculated acquisition tax base amounting to 6,417,769, and 306,6786,637,67, and 490 won from the book value of the goods subject to acquisition tax.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on June 28, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 14 through 22, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion B transfer, the Plaintiff subscribed to shares of 50%, D, and E 25%, respectively, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was from E on November 28, 192.