1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 21, 2012 to February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased and acquired the vehicles for filing complaints from B and five other (hereinafter “each of the instant vehicles”). During that process, the Plaintiff was granted reduction of and exemption from acquisition tax in full pursuant to Article 120(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same).

B. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice of imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 68,233,800 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not constitute a business start-up of a small and medium enterprise pursuant to Article 6(6)1 and 4 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act because it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff engaged in the same type of business through acquisition by transfer of the business to a private company that is the

Accordingly, the plaintiff requested a pre-assessment review on November 21, 2014, but was non-adopted.

C. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 69,461,620 (the main tax of KRW 50,860,710, the additional tax of KRW 18,60,910) on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 22, 2016.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) “A” as an independent legal entity and the Plaintiff are separate and independent legal entities, and the Plaintiff did not acquire business assets from an independent entrepreneur C. Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a small and medium start-up enterprise under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Nevertheless, the instant disposition of imposition, which the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff was not a small and medium start-up enterprise, was unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff, a taxpayer, interpreted the Plaintiff as a small and medium start-up enterprise, is unclear.