1. Acquisition tax imposed on the Plaintiff on November 12, 2014, KRW 214,88,90 and special rural development tax amounting to KRW 18,324,330.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) was established on June 26, 1998, and was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 2, 2003, and completed the registration of continuation of the company as of June 1, 2005. At the time, the shares issued by the instant company were KRW 500,000, and the capital was KRW 50 million.

B. From February 22, 2008 to April 2, 2013, the current status of shareholder change in the shareholder registry of the instant company is as follows.

On December 22, 2008, December 2012, 2012, D 2,250 D 452,250 E 45 E 2,250 450 450 F 500 100 5,000 G 2,250 2,250 H 50 H 500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,00 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 5,00 5,00 0 5,00 0 5,000 5,000

C. Accordingly, on April 2, 2013, the Defendant imposed and collected acquisition tax on the Plaintiff on November 12, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired 5,000 shares of the instant company (10%) and became an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, and imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 214,88,90 (including additional taxes) and KRW 18,324,330 (including additional taxes) for the special rural development tax on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, around February 2, 2008, had 2,250 shares of the instant company owned by E, G, the Plaintiff’s head, G, the Plaintiff, acquire 500 shares (10%) of the instant company owned by F, from H, the Plaintiff’s mother, respectively, and on March 4, 2008, promoted the instant company’s shares 2,250 shares (45%) from D, the representative director of the instant company, and the instant company’s apartment business (hereinafter “I apartment business”) with the transfer of all duties and authority as the representative director of the instant company, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder of the instant company.

(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;