1. The Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 33,903,660 on the Plaintiff on September 12, 2013, KRW 4,129,763, and special rural development tax of KRW 1.00.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 8, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired a factory building of 2500 square meters of land for C and of 1228.87 square meters on that land (hereinafter “factory building”) from the Defendant for KRW 95 million, and was exempted from acquisition tax by being recognized as a business property of a small or medium start-up enterprise pursuant to the main sentence of Article 120(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011) (hereinafter “instant provision”).

B. Based on the audit results conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff leased the instant building and its appurtenant land (hereinafter “instant building, etc.”) to B for another purpose without justifiable grounds; (b) rendered a disposition imposing acquisition tax of KRW 33,903,660, special rural development tax of KRW 1,695,160, and local education tax of KRW 3,140,650 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on September 12, 2013 pursuant to the proviso to the instant provision (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a pre-assessment review with the Gyeongnam-do. However, the Gyeongnam-do rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on September 4, 2013, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the instant disposition on November 5, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 23, 2014.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was only leased KRW 70 million, monthly rent of KRW 70 million, and KRW 7 million, among the instant buildings, to B, as well as the land annexed thereto. The Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff leased all the instant buildings, etc. to B, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination 1 The Plaintiff is in B.