1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the modification of the three to five-five-party 7 among the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of first instance (including the attachment, but excluding the part concerning the third party conclusion). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. 1) The former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13636, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(5) The main sentence of Article 7(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26836, Dec. 31, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26836, Dec. 31, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26836, Dec. 31, 2015) provides that “When a person becomes an oligopolistic stockholder pursuant to Article 47 subparag.

Article 11(2) main text of Article 11(2) provides that a shareholder who already becomes an oligopolistic shareholder shall be deemed to have acquired the relevant corporation’s stocks and impose acquisition tax on the oligopolistic shareholder by considering the increase in the number of stocks that he/she owns. As such, deeming that the main text of Article 7(5) of the former Local Tax Act is to acquire the corporation’s assets against an oligopolistic shareholder, and imposing acquisition tax on the oligopolistic shareholder is due to the fact that the oligopolistic shareholder was placed in a position to be able to arbitrarily dispose of, or manage and operate the relevant corporation’s assets, and that there is no substantial difference between the person directly owning the relevant assets. Therefore, whether a shareholder who is liable to pay acquisition tax under the said provision constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder shall be determined based on whether the shareholder is not a shareholder on the shareholder registry but by exercising the corporation’s rights through voting rights with respect to the relevant stocks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du260