1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 480,00,00 among the 717 Dong Dong-dong B717-dong T2 (hereinafter “instant housing”), and filed a return on and pay acquisition tax of KRW 9,600,000,00 on January 27, 2012 pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 40-2 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 11487, Oct. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same) as a temporary two house, by applying the reduction of acquisition tax of KRW 50%, acquisition tax of KRW 9,600,000, local education tax of KRW 960,000, special agricultural and fishing villages tax of KRW 2,400,000.

B. At the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant house, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff owned a single-story house located in C (hereinafter “instant inherited house”) and did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption, and issued a notice on December 15, 2014 that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff acquisition tax of KRW 13,104,00 (including additional taxes of KRW 4,94,00) and local education tax of KRW 1,358,40 (including additional taxes of KRW 398,40) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, at the time of acquiring the instant house, the Plaintiff was the 1/2 equity right holder of the instant house, and was also owned by Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 101 (hereinafter “D”) and sold D housing on September 2, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 7 through 10 (including paper numbers), Eul's 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The instant inherited house is registered only in the name of the Plaintiff and its actual ownership is not a clan, and thus, it cannot be deemed a house owned by the Plaintiff. In addition, in light of the purport of the amendment of the proviso of Article 40-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, the inherited house should be excluded from the number of houses owned by the Plaintiff as well as the criteria under Article 155 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Special Cases concerning Housing 1 per household). Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a multi-resident