1. The claim for nullification of the additional dues shall be dismissed among the lawsuits in this case.

2. The Defendant’s act on August 19, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff initially held 72,000 shares issued by B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), which are 36% of the 200,000 shares (a par value of 5,000 shares per share), and the Plaintiff’s wife C owned 28,00 shares, which are 14% of the shares issued by Nonparty Co., Ltd.

B. However, on May 27, 2011, the statement of changes in stocks, etc. submitted by the non-party company to the director of the Si interest office upon filing a corporate tax return for the business year 201, stating that the Plaintiff acquired 28,000 shares issued by the non-party company from D, other shareholders of the non-party company, and the number of shares owned by the non-party company increased to 100,000 shares, which is 50

C. Accordingly, on August 19, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the acquisition tax of KRW 46,683,410 and KRW 4,668,330 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”), and additional dues for delay in payment of acquisition tax, etc. (= KRW 5,854,010) on the aggregate of KRW 5,854,010 (= KRW 5,321,90 additional dues for special rural development tax of KRW 532,110), deeming that the Plaintiff and its specially related persons exceeded 50/100 of the total number of shares issued by Nonparty Company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-4, Gap evidence 3-1 and Eul evidence 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the additional dues among the lawsuits in this case, ex officio, as to the lawfulness of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the additional dues.

Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that if a national tax is not paid by the payment deadline, a notice of additional dues or increased additional dues is naturally generated pursuant to the provisions of a law without the final procedure of the tax office. Thus, it cannot be deemed that a notice of additional dues or increased additional dues

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482 Decided June 10, 2005, etc.).