1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established with the aim of enhancing the agricultural productivity of its members, promoting the expansion of markets for agricultural products produced by its members and the activation of distribution sources, and enhancing the economic, social, and cultural status of its members by providing them with technology, funds, materials, and information required by its members.

B. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased ten parcels of land including the sum of 1436, 1437, and 1440 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant parcels of land”) on September 30, 2015, in order to promote the new construction project of the Kimpo Agricultural, Agricultural, Livestock, and Livestock Products Sales outlet (hereinafter “instant sales outlet”). Of that, each of the instant parcels of land was paid and acquired on December 30, 2015, and the remainder of five parcels of land was paid and acquired on June 30, 2016.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax of 59,697,00 won, local education tax of 3,979,800 won, special rural development tax of 3,979,800 won, and special rural development tax of 3,979,800 won (hereinafter “acquisition tax of this case, etc.”) on each of the instant land from the Defendant on the ground that “real estate acquired to use directly for milk business” under Article 14(3) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015)

C. However, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit only on December 28, 2016 due to the cancellation of the agricultural promotion zone and the permission to divert farmland. The Defendant announced the Defendant to file a voluntary report and pay the acquisition tax of this case, etc., which was reduced or exempted, by December 30, 2016, when the construction of each of the instant land was commenced until December 30, 2016, which became one year from the date of acquisition

On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion that there was a justifiable reason for not being used directly for the proper business within the grace period after acquiring the business site. However, on January 13, 2017, the Defendant sent a written opinion of review that the Plaintiff does not constitute justifiable reason.

The plaintiff on January 24, 2017, acquisition tax.