1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the co-ownership right holder of a total of 17,198.5 square meters of six parcels, other than Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, as indicated in the list (attached Form 3).

Plaintiff

A limited liability company B (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") is the co-ownership right holder of a total of 28,875 m2 in Seodaemun-gu Seoul and seven lots of land indicated in the list (attached Form 4), and is the owner of a "D hotel" (E hotel), which is a building on the ground.

(hereinafter referred to as "real estate in this case" in total. (b)

Pursuant to Article 54(2) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 10 subparag. 1 of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”), the Plaintiffs filed an application for reduction and exemption of 50% of property tax on the instant real estate in 2012 and 2013.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant issued an additional notice of the amount of local tax reduction in 2012, which had already been granted an application for reduction or exemption, to the Plaintiffs on the ground that “the passenger room fee at the time of January 1, 2007 was not reduced by at least 20% as of the tax base date compared with the passenger room fee at the time of the indication price standard,” and that the portion of local tax reduction or exemption in 2013, which had not yet been applied to the provision on reduction or exemption, was the method of notifying the entire local tax (attached Form 1) and the property tax,

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") d.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for adjudication on October 4, 2013, but were dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on December 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion (1) Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Claim for Reduction and Exemption of Property Tax based on the actual guest room charges provides for the reduction and exemption of property tax only where the amount has been reduced by at least 20% compared to the “mark price standard”.

However, Article 17 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes.