The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The main text of Article 105(6) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8835, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that “If a person becomes an oligopolistic stockholder by acquiring stocks of a corporation, the oligopolistic stockholder shall be deemed to have acquired the real estate, etc. of the relevant corporation” with respect to the liability to pay deemed acquisition tax, and in the proviso thereof, the same shall not apply where a person becomes an oligopolistic stockholder by acquiring stocks issued at the time of incorporation.”

Here, oligopolistic shareholder refers to one shareholder and his/her relatives and other persons in special relationship with him/her as prescribed in Article 22 (2) of the former Local Tax Act, at least 51/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks of the corporation concerned.

Meanwhile, Article 78(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21975, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that where a shareholder who has already become an oligopolistic shareholder has increased share ratio by acquiring stocks of the relevant corporation, acquisition tax shall be imposed on the increased portion by deeming such increase as acquisition. However, the proviso provides that acquisition tax shall not be imposed if the increase in shares ratio is not increased than the highest share ratio held by the relevant oligopolistic shareholder within five years before the increase as of the date of such increase.

The substance over form principle under Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) refers to the person to whom the income, profit, property, transaction, etc. belongs, if there is a separate person to whom the income, profit, or transaction belongs, unlike the nominal person to whom the income, profit, property, or transaction, belongs, not the nominal person to whom the income, etc., belongs, but the nominal person to whom the income, etc., belongs is the taxpayer. This principle