1. As to the Plaintiff on August 4, 2014:

(a) acquisition tax on the acquisition of equipment for facilities 3,261,290; and

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff, holding 98,000 shares of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “instant company”) out of the total issued shares of 200,000 shares, acquired 102,00 shares of the instant company (the share ratio of 51%; hereinafter “instant shares”) held by C and D.

B. On August 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares from C and D, and became an oligopolistic shareholder holding 200,000 shares issued by the instant company (100%), the Defendant imposed acquisition tax amounting to KRW 4,653,06,150, which is the value on the account books of the subject matter of acquisition tax (in the case of land, buildings, facilities, equipment, and units owned by the instant company) owned by the instant company on December 31, 2012; and (b) calculated based on the tax base of KRW 127,082,830 as indicated in the table, and KRW 10,847,030,030, which is the aggregate of KRW 137,929,860,00 as indicated in the table.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The details of the disposition of imposition shall be 3,261, 290, 92, 135, 080, 731,100,95, 360, 127,082,830, 77,864, 62, 390, 642, 170, 170, 1747, 039, 99, 2007, 390, 490, 333,590, 537, 97, 137, 929, 97, 137, 929, 97, 137, 929, 860

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on October 17, 2014. However, on January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff received a decision of dismissal from the Superiorbuk-do Governor on January 16, 2015, and filed an appeal on January 27, 2015, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on April 13, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 23, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant shares were registered in title C and D when establishing the instant company, but was returned to the instant shares upon cancelling a title trust agreement on February 28, 2013. As such, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay deemed acquisition tax under Article 7(5) of the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff.