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

A. On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling ready-mixed. On May 2, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired land B in Gwangju Mine-gu, and D, E, F, G, C, and H land and building C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for reduction of or exemption from acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that “the instant real estate constitutes a business property acquired by a small or medium start-up enterprise within four years from the date of establishment to conduct the relevant business; and (b) was exempted from acquisition tax, local education tax, and special rural development tax on the instant real estate under Article 120(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same)

C. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant inspected the actual use of the instant real estate, and confirmed that the instant real estate was not used for the intended business, and on July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a disposition imposing acquisition tax of KRW 55,579,540, local education tax of KRW 537,150, and special rural development tax of KRW 2,768,570 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 22, 2016, but was dismissed on October 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff established a factory to engage in the manufacture and sales business of ready-mixeds, etc., acquired the instant real estate and applied for approval of the small and medium enterprise start-up business plan. The Defendant applied for approval of the Plaintiff’s business plan for reasons such as occurrence of civil petitions.