1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B tax accounting corporation (hereinafter “instant corporation”) was established on December 18, 2003. Of the total number of shares issued by the instant corporation, the Plaintiff held 7,400 shares (37%) (37%), C, D, and E respectively 4,00 shares (20%), F, G, and H 20 shares (1%).

B. On December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired 4,000 shares of the instant corporation from C, 200 shares from G (hereinafter “instant shares transfer”), and held 11,60 shares of the instant corporation (58%).

C. On December 11, 2017, the Defendant first determined that the Plaintiff became an oligopolistic shareholder, and imposed and collected acquisition tax of KRW 5,260,830, special rural development tax, KRW 450,940, and KRW 264,780 (including additional tax) with the tax base of KRW 58% of the book value of the real estate owned by the instant corporation pursuant to Article 7(5) of the Local Tax Act and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with respect to the Plaintiff as the tax base of KRW 58% of the book value of the real estate owned by the instant corporation.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but was dismissed on March 29, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the representative director of the corporation of this case. C is a director of the corporation of this case. G is a certified tax accountant employed by the corporation of this case, and all of them are related parties as defined in Article 2 (1) 34 (a) or (b) of the Framework

Therefore, despite the transfer of the instant shares, there was no change in the ratio of the total stocks or shares owned by all oligopolistic shareholders. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder for the first time to transfer the instant shares is unlawful.

(b).