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

2. Acquisition tax imposed on the Plaintiff on June 11, 2013, 13,958.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 13,958,40, local education tax of KRW 1,395,840, and special rural development tax of KRW 697,920.

The court of the first instance accepted the claim for cancellation of the acquisition tax penalty of KRW 1,958,400, local education tax of KRW 195,840, and special rural development tax of KRW 97,920.

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

Therefore, the Supreme Court’s scope of adjudication is limited to 12,00,000 won of the principal tax of acquisition tax, which is the part against the plaintiff among the disposition of this case, the principal tax of local education tax, 1,200,000, and 600,000 won of the principal tax of special rural

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 (as stated in the second to third (as stated in the third). 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.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concerning this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated below, 9 to 7 pages 2) except for the following matters, and 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.

Parts used for repair shall be as follows:

5) 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 law by the court is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court (Article 18-20), and 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 New Act