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

A. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff newly constructed an apartment building B in Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and acquired the ownership thereof. On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid to the Defendant the acquisition tax of KRW 2,303,690,60, and the local education tax of KRW 131,639,450, and KRW 2,436,215,560, which are the total amount of KRW 91,367,098,566, which is the tax base.

B. On November 10, 2017, the Defendant imposed and collected acquisition tax of KRW 53,215,230 (including additional tax), local education tax of KRW 2,810,360 (including additional tax), and special rural development tax of KRW 19,080 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On December 6, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 56,044,670 to the Defendant, including acquisition tax imposed according to the instant disposition.

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 2, 2018.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not to be paid for the acquisition of the apartment of this case, which is an object, unlike farmland preservation charges or expenses incurred in creating forest replacement resources, but only for the expenses incurred in selling the apartment of this case. The establishment of the obligation to pay the school site charges of this case is also established based on sale rather than the acquisition of the apartment of this case. The sale of the apartment of this case constitutes a disposal act that generates profits rather than the acquisition of the apartment of this case. Thus, the school site charges of this case directly related to the acquisition of the apartment of this case