A. On February 1, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired (hereinafter “instant housing”) No. 8303, 403, Dong-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

B. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff reported and paid the tax amount reduced by 50/100 of the acquisition tax and local education tax (hereinafter “acquisition tax, etc.”) pursuant to Article 40-2 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11487, Oct. 2, 2012; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act”) and Article 17-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff owns the current head of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 101 and 1207 (hereinafter “former house”).

C. After examining the current status of the Plaintiff’s housing ownership, on April 16, 2015, the Defendant excluded the application of the provision on reduction and exemption on the ground that “the Plaintiff owned not only the previous housing at the time of acquiring the instant housing but also the share of the building D ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and constitutes a third-party housing owner, and thus does not constitute a temporary two housing owner subject to reduction and exemption of acquisition tax.” The Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 22,434,560 and local education tax of KRW 2,094,230, including the amount of

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal. On March 3, 2016, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for inquiry.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds of its disposition and the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff constitutes a temporary two house owner at the time of acquiring the instant house for the following reasons.