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 June 23, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired at KRW 536,692,70, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day, the Plaintiff acquired at KRW 536,692,70 of the purchase price, Nos. 101, Nos. 101, 201, Non-301, and Non-401 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 16, 2012, the Defendant imposed property tax on the Plaintiff (No. 101, 3,416,380, 3,439, 890, 301, 301, 301, 301, 439,89, 401, 2,195, 100), local resource and facility tax (No. 2,095, 700, 2010, 2,110, 3010, 2,120, 2,120, 3010, 120, 120, 120, 120, 401, 401, 4301, 4301, 401, 4301, 401, 4301, 4301, 401, 4304, 197, 401, 40104

(Tax Base Date is June 1, 2012 and hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (c)

On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection at the same time on September 14, 2012; however, the Plaintiff was dismissed on October 25 of the same year; and again, on January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on the same year.

4.2. The dismissal ruling was rejected;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is illegal;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a parking-only building that is located in the underground floor and has no operating profit in the surrounding business district. Considering that the Plaintiff acquired the instant building from KRW 536,692,70, the Defendant may impose only KRW 1.2 million property tax by applying the actual transaction value of the instant building as the property tax base. As such, the part exceeding KRW 1.2 million in the instant disposition should be revoked.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Article 110 of the Local Tax Act and Article 109 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.