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

A. The Plaintiff: (a) newly constructed two driving school units and one unit of maintenance control room on the ground of 19,693 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”), including B king-si land owned by the Plaintiff; (b) 16,081 square meters of land for B; (c) 572 square meters of land for D; and (d) 2,849 square meters of land for D; and (c) 19,693 square meters of area for E preceding 19,693 square meters of land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”); (c) obtained approval for use on December 27, 2011; and (d) changed the land category of each of the instant land to miscellaneous land on December 30, 201; and

B. On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff calculated the standard market price after the change of land category as a comparative standard site of 1,282 square meters (the commercial use, specific use area, general industrial area, hereinafter “instant comparative standard site”) and calculated as 2,580,000 or square meters (2,640,000 or square meters of the officially announced land price of the comparative standard site of this case x 0.98) and reported to the Defendant on January 6, 2012, acquisition tax of 224,50,200,222,450,020, total of 246,950,220,020, following the change of land category of the instant land.

4. 30. Payment was made.

C. On June 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification on the ground that the land category change in the instant land does not correspond to the increase in its value as a result of the de facto change of land category, but the Defendant rejected the said claim for rectification on July 16, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Gyeonggi-do Governor on January 4, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an objection on the ground that an increase in the value of the instant land due to land category was already reflected in the sale price at the time of acquisition of the land, but the said objection was dismissed on March 27, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, Eul evidence No. 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the surrounding land is a factory zone.