1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details and circumstances of the disposition;

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the instant safety defense is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is that the Plaintiff’s union members, before December 31, 2008, entrusted the land owned by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff and completed the registration of trust in the Plaintiff’s name. As to the land registered under the above trust, the Plaintiff is not liable for payment, such as acquisition tax, without distinguishing the land for union members and non-members according to the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9320, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”).

In other words, if a housing association acquires land owned by a member as real estate for partnership and makes a trust registration concurrently, the portion corresponding to the land for partnership member's use is deemed to have been acquired by the association member pursuant to Article 105 (10) of the former Local Tax Act, so acquisition tax shall not be imposed on the housing association, and the portion not for partnership member's use is not subject to acquisition tax under the main sentence of Article 110 (1) of the same Act,

On the other hand, 211 of the members of the association who entrusted the land to the Plaintiff becomes a person subject to cash settlement because they did not apply for parcelling-out, which was made cash settlement in 2010, but the act of acquiring the land of the housing association was already made at the time of completing each ownership transfer registration (trust registration) in the name of the housing association in the name of each member of the housing association. Thus, even if the cash settlement was made thereafter, the transfer of the land does not take place anew from the members of the housing association, and

Therefore, the plaintiff does not acquire new land at the time of cash settlement.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s members on December 31, 2008.