The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The main text of Article 105(6) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8835, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that “If a person becomes an oligopolistic stockholder by acquiring stocks of a corporation, the oligopolistic stockholder shall be deemed to have acquired the real estate, etc. of the corporation concerned” with respect to the liability to pay deemed acquisition tax. Here, the term “ oligopolistic stockholder” refers to one stockholder and his relatives and other persons having special relations with him as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, who hold more than 51/100 of the total number of stocks issued by the corporation concerned.

Meanwhile, Article 78(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21975, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that where a shareholder who has already become an oligopolistic shareholder acquires stocks of the relevant corporation and thereby becomes an oligopolistic shareholder, acquisition tax shall be imposed by deeming the increased portion as acquisition if the ratio of stocks he/she owns is increased. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that where a person who has again become an oligopolistic shareholder but became not an oligopolistic shareholder due to a transfer of stocks becomes an oligopolistic shareholder again becomes an oligopolistic shareholder by acquiring stocks of the relevant corporation within five years thereafter, acquisition tax shall be imposed by deeming the increased portion as acquisition only if the ratio of stocks at the time when he/she

2. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “C”) paid the full amount of the subscription price for shares of 60,000 shares, which is the total number of outstanding shares of the Plaintiff Company C on January 6, 2004; and (b) the Plaintiff Company B, D, and B, who is in a special relationship with the Plaintiff Plaintiff A, are the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff Company D and B exercise their voting rights according to the Plaintiff Company A’s intent; and (c) the transfer procedure after returning shares immediately upon the Plaintiff’s request.