1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be incidental to the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company with the purpose of installment financing business, facility leasing business, etc., and the location of its principal office is 100, 1101, 11, Jung-gu, Seoul (Mo-dong 2, Namsan 2).

B. On January 1, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) registered the instant vehicle for facility leasing (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); (b) “156, 156, 2, 632, 2, and 632, which is the location of the branch office of Changwon-si, Yongsan-gu; (c) Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Namcheon-dong, 56-2; and (d) “101, 102, and 102, the building used for facilities leasing (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (b) paid each acquisition tax listed in the attached Table 1 to the Defendants having jurisdiction over the said vehicle.

C. Meanwhile, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Gangnam-gu”) around September 10, 2012 (hereinafter “the head of Gangnam-gu”).

The Plaintiff imposed acquisition tax (including additional tax) of KRW 74,574,179,020 on the ground that each place of use of the instant vehicle, registered as stated in the subsection, has no human or physical elements, and the Plaintiff’s place of use can not be a place of use under the Automobile Management Act, and the Plaintiff’s place of use constitutes the place of payment of acquisition tax of the instant vehicle

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of imposition by the head of Gangnam-gu").

On December 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the Defendants should remove the risk of double payment of acquisition tax due to the imposition by the head of Gangnam-gu Office, and thus request the refund of acquisition tax already paid. However, the Defendants rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition tax was paid at the place of tax payment as long as it was not subject to request for correction on each date indicated in the “date of rejection disposition”

E. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to re-examine the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.