2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents established on January 2007, which newly constructs and sells multi-family housing (C apartment, 744 households in total, 453 households in general, hereinafter referred to as the "multi-family housing of this case") on the ground B of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-family housing of this case").

After selling the general unit unit of the instant multi-family housing, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,027,89,180 (hereinafter “instant charges”) to the Defendant for eight times from April 20, 2012 to November 15, 2013.

On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff newly built the instant multi-family housing, and reported and paid acquisition tax, local education tax, special rural development tax, 2,548,84,810 won to the Defendant on January 7, 2014 with the tax base of KRW 115,681,163,406 as acquisition value on January 7, 2014.

After confirming that the Plaintiff had omitted filing of the instant charges from the acquisition tax base of the instant multi-family housing, the Defendant issued each imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 78,352,320 (including additional tax of KRW 21,571,150), local education tax of KRW 4,152,790 (including additional tax of KRW 908,160), and special rural development tax of KRW 1,175,660 (including additional tax of KRW 257,100) on August 1, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On October 18, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on October 18, 2016, but was dismissed on August 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1-3 (including more than one number), and the purport of the whole pleading as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the purport of the plaintiff's assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, are shared with expenses for goods (school sites) not subject to acquisition, and thus, the charges of this case is not for the acquisition of the apartment of this case but for sale

Tax authorities, including the defendant, are exempt from the acquisition tax base.