1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Acquisition tax imposed on the Plaintiff on May 8, 2013, KRW 13,158,720, and local education tax.

In light of the above legal principles, the following facts are revealed: (a) local education tax; (b) no tax base for special rural development tax is stated; and (c) no principal tax, including acquisition tax, and no tax rate for additional tax, are properly stated (the reference materials submitted by the Defendant claiming that they are the back pages for the tax payment notice; and (d) no ground exists to regard them as the back pages for the tax payment notice; and (c) no specific basis for calculation, such as each tax rate or tax base, can be identified even if the “return of acquisition tax and guidance for payment” printed with the same text is included; (b) the Plaintiff notified the results of the tax investigation on April 25, 2013, the transfer of the disposition; and (d) the notice of the results of the tax investigation, states that the tax amount of each principal tax, such as acquisition tax, tax base of acquisition tax, additional tax on each principal tax; and (e) the rate of local education tax and additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax payment (amended by Act No. 11617, Jan. 17, 2013). 100).

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds that there is a defect in which part of the matters required by the relevant statutes were omitted, and that such defect cannot be deemed to have been supplemented or cured by the notification of the results of the said tax investigation.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted with due reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the disposition of this case is revoked.