1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred 98,000 unlisted stocks issued by Company B, a small and medium enterprise, to Company C at KRW 7 billion, and reported and paid the capital gains tax by applying 20% of the capital gains tax rate on August 31, 2016.

B. On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should additionally deduct securities transaction tax KRW 35 million to the necessary expenses, and that the Plaintiff is not a major shareholder of a stock-listed corporation, and thus, the Plaintiff should apply the transfer income tax rate of KRW 10 per cent under Article 104(1)11 (b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same) and filed an application for rectification to refund KRW 654,245,821 in total.

C. On April 11, 2018, the Defendant asserted that securities transaction tax should be additionally recognized as necessary expenses among the above allegations by the Plaintiff. The transfer income tax rate should be applied by 20% under Article 104(1)1(b) of the former Income Tax Act, not by 10% under Article 104(1)11(b) of the former Income Tax Act, and thus, partially rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant on June 28, 2018, but was dismissed on August 8, 2018, and again filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 31, 2018, but was dismissed on December 13, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 94(1)3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017; hereinafter the same) delegated the scope of “large shareholder” to the Plaintiff’s assertion under Article 157(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act by delegation to the Presidential Decree. However, this provision is applicable.