1. The Defendant’s acquisition tax of 38,365,570 won and special rural development tax of 3,836,550 won and special rural development tax of 3,836,550, respectively, against the Plaintiff on February 17, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) owned 18,00 shares issued by the Plaintiff and its specially related persons (hereinafter “instant company”); (b) additionally acquired shares 5,000 shares of the instant company from C on December 15, 2009 (hereinafter “instant shares”) and paid acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file a return and pay acquisition tax, etc. on February 17, 2014; and (c) on December 15, 2009, the Defendant calculated by multiplying the value of the subject matter of acquisition tax owned by the instant company by 20%, which is the ratio of shares increased by the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares; and (d) calculated by multiplying the acquisition tax base by the acquisition tax rate of KRW 1,165,135,729, and including additional tax to KRW 38,365,57,236,205,2536,2538 (including additional tax).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on May 9, 2014, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on July 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On August 6, 1993, when the Plaintiff established the instant company on August 6, 1993, the Plaintiff inevitably held title trust with C, who was an employee of the instant company, to satisfy the conditions for the establishment of the former Commercial Act (seven promoters), but, on December 15, 2009, C retired from the instant company, terminated the title trust agreement and restored the title thereof.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares from C was restored only to the name of the instant shares, which was actually owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that there was no ground for its disposal.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Determination 1) The former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010) that served as the basis for the instant disposition.