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 July 18, 2014, a building permit for new construction of a motor vehicle-related facility (sale site, etc.) was issued on six lots, including Seoul, A, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”), and on December 19, 2014, the said building permit was issued.

The building owner B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) removed the building existing on the instant land, and the building ledger was cancelled on August 7, 2015.

B. As of June 1, 2016 (the assessment basis date of property tax in 2016), the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land due to trust.

The building construction on the instant land was not commenced until June 1, 2016.

C. Article 106(1)2(a) and (c) of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 14474, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Articles 101(1), 103(1)3, and 103-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27710, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) prescribe “land annexed to a building under construction” and “land annexed to a building for which six months have not passed since the date on which the building was actually removed (referring to the date on which the date of de facto removal is removed if it is unknown) as of the taxable base date” as “special aggregate taxation.

On June 1, 2016, the Defendant considered the instant land as “general aggregate taxation” on the ground that construction was not commenced on the instant land as of June 1, 2016, and imposed KRW 120,989,860 on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2016, property tax belonging to the urban area, KRW 33,947,150, and KRW 24,197,97,97,970 on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had not commenced as of June 1, 2016 is with LT Holdings Co., Ltd. (a company that entered into a joint business agreement with B; hereinafter “ELT Holdings”).