1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Acquisition tax that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 11, 2013 14,921.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 14,921,050, local education tax of KRW 1,484,390, and special rural development tax of KRW 749,880.

The court of the first instance accepted the claim for cancellation of the portion of acquisition tax penalty of KRW 1,201,80, local education tax of KRW 119,550, and special rural development tax of KRW 60,390.

In this regard, only the plaintiff appealed, and the defendant did not appeal.

Therefore, the Supreme Court’s scope of adjudication is limited to the principal tax of acquisition tax of 13,719,250 won, the main tax of local education tax of 1,364,840 won, and the main tax of special rural development tax of 689,490 won.

2. The court's explanation concerning this part of the disposition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 7 to No. 37). Thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the main sentence

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated below, No. 10 to No. 6, 13) except that the court's explanation about this part is based on some contents as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for repair shall be as follows:

4) The instant disposition is unlawful since the duty payment notice concerning the instant disposition was partially omitted in matters required by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

A person shall be appointed.

B. The content of this part of the pertinent statute is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court (Article 15-17). Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. As to the assertion of reduction or exemption of acquisition tax pursuant to the interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the former Act, the former Act is applicable.