1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Acquisition tax assessed against the Plaintiff on May 9, 2013, KRW 10,919,100, and local education tax assessed against the Plaintiff.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used or added or deleted as follows. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

The 6th parallel 6th parallel 11th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 11th parallel 2th parallel as follows:

4) In the instant disposition, even if the instant disposition was lawful, in light of the developments leading up to the amendment under Article 120(1)9 of the New Act, etc., the part concerning penalty tax out of the instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty was justifiable.

5) The notice of tax payment regarding the disposition of this case by asserting illegality in the disposition of this case does not stipulate the tax base of acquisition tax and the tax base of local education tax and special rural development tax, and only states the total amount without distinguishing the amount of principal tax and additional tax, and the tax rate of each tax item is not indicated, and the provisions of the relevant tax base law and regulations are not specified in accordance with the taxation object. Such a notice of tax payment is unlawful since some of the matters required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes were defective. The same applies to the notice of the result of tax investigation conducted by the Defendant prior to the disposition of this case by the Plaintiff, which is not specified in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus the defect is not cured. The part from six pages to eight pages is as follows.

1) Whether acquisition tax has been reduced or exempted pursuant to the interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter the same) under Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010); and