A. On August 24, 2010, the Plaintiff opened a credit-do branch in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Young-do 26, Yeongdeungpo-gu.

B. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the first and fourth floors among the land and the above-ground buildings in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) as real estate for rent. On January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax of KRW 675,18,240, special rural development tax of KRW 33,759,410, and local education tax of KRW 67,518,820, totaling KRW 76,46,470.

C. On March 9, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s brigade branch to part of the first floor of the instant building (area 372.2 square meters), and on April 8, 2013, the Plaintiff reported and paid the acquisition tax of KRW 41,826,80, and the total amount of KRW 14,965,360, and KRW 89,792,160, by applying the heavy taxation rate under Article 13(2) of the Local Tax Act.

On the other hand, among the instant building (total area of 3,358.49 square meters), three stories (area of 912 square meters) and four stories (area of 489.2 square meters) among the instant building (total area of 3,358.49 square meters) are leased to other companies and used by the Plaintiff’s head office, part of the first floor, the second floor, and part of the fourth floor (total area of 1,585.09 square meters; hereinafter “instant leased part”).

E. On April 1, 2014, the Defendant imposed and notified KRW 416,565,520 (including penalty tax without filing a tax return) and local education tax 70,568,240 (including penalty tax without filing a tax return 6,843,974) by deeming that the instant leased portion is subject to the heavy tax rate of acquisition tax.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff acquired the leased portion of this case regardless of the leisure point. Since the acquisition of the leased portion of this case did not cause population inflow or concentration of economic power to a large city, it is difficult to view the leased portion of this case as the subject matter of heavy taxation under Article 13(2) of the former Local Tax Act. 2) The Plaintiff reported and paid the acquisition tax after the acquisition of the building of this case, and it is intended to do so.