1. Acquisition tax of 10,493,610 won (including additional taxes) and special rural development tax of 906, which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2016 by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 25, 2013, Korea (U.S. Regional Forest Administration Office in North Korea) announced a bid for sale of state forest products (standing trees) with the content that the state forest products are sold outside species 5-28,804 of trees, other than live leaves, which are state forest products, in Yangyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do and C, which are state forests.

B. On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of state forest products (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Republic of Korea to purchase the said trees in KRW 356,780,000, after participating in the said bidding and becoming a successful bidder, and paid the remainder on January 6, 2013.

C. On August 26, 2015, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 10,493,610 (including additional taxes) and special rural development tax of KRW 906,640 (including additional taxes) on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired “standing timber” as above, and did not notify the Plaintiff of the detailed calculation details of the acquisition tax and additional tax.

Accordingly, on September 26, 2016, the Defendant revoked ex officio each of the above dispositions during the instant lawsuit, and issued each of the dispositions (hereinafter “instant dispositions”) on the Plaintiff, including the details of calculation of acquisition tax, additional tax, etc., by specifying the details of calculation, etc., and imposing acquisition tax of KRW 10,493,610 (including additional tax) and special rural development tax of KRW 906,640 (including additional tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that he had actually acquired standing timber through the instant contract is not a standing timber, it is deemed that the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired standing timber is unlawful, and is in violation of the principle of substantial taxation, the good faith and non-taxation, and even if the Plaintiff should pay acquisition tax as it acquired standing timber, the Plaintiff did not pay acquisition tax.