1. Additional tax in the disposition of imposition as shown in attached Form 1 taken by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since its establishment on November 28, 1995, the Plaintiff continued to have its principal office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul as a corporation that runs a facility leasing business, etc. under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act.

B. From January 3, 2011 to June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired 1,309 vehicles for facility leasing (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and completed the registration pursuant to the Automobile Management Act with the place of use of “72-22, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si” (hereinafter “instant branch”) which is the location of the branch in the corporate register, as the place of use. As indicated in attached Table 2, the Plaintiff reported and paid the total acquisition tax of KRW 3,199,263,50 to the Defendant Changwon-si, as indicated in attached Table 2.

C. On October 10, 2012, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Gangnam-gu”) conducted a field investigation on the instant branch, etc. from August 1, 2012 to August 9, 2012, on the ground that there is no human or physical facility, and the instant branch cannot serve as a place of use under the Automobile Management Act, and the place of payment of acquisition tax on the instant vehicle must be the Seoul Metropolitan Government having jurisdiction over the instant head office. On October 10, 2012, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of Gangnam-gu”) issued a disposition imposing acquisition tax of KRW 3,199,263,50 and additional tax of KRW 1,014,493,320 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On October 10, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 30, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to re-examine the current status of the storage, management, use, etc. of the instant vehicle as of the time of acquisition of the instant vehicle and to rectify the tax base and tax amount according to the result.

E. Meanwhile, on October 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that acquisition tax already paid to Defendant Changwon City would be refunded, but Defendant Changwon City would have refused the request on November 2, 2012.

Among them, the plaintiff has cancelled.