1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. From the first instance court to September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 222,212,970 (including additional tax), KRW 22,221,290 (including additional tax), and registration tax of KRW 88,901,750 (including additional tax) and local education tax of KRW 16,676,040 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The first instance court dismissed the claim for revocation of each principal tax of the instant disposition, and accepted the claim for revocation of each additional tax.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against this issue, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for revocation of each principal tax among the dispositions of this case.

2. This Court’s decision concerning this part of the grounds for appeal is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 2, 7, and 6). Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Articles 108 and 127-2 of the former Local Tax Act, which are the provisions for reduction and exemption of acquisition tax and registration tax for alternative acquisition, are non-taxation requirements, “natural disaster, destruction by fire, collapse, and other force majeure”, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act”).

(2) Article 79-2 of the Act only provides for “vis major” with regard to “the act of God, storm and flood, lightning, fire or other similar disaster,” and does not limit it to natural disasters. The fire of this case constitutes “vis major,” which is not attributable to the Plaintiff, a taxpayer, and thus constitutes “vis major,” and thus, acquisition tax, etc. on the building of this case shall be exempted. 2) The Defendant expressed a public opinion that reconstruction of the building of this case constitutes non-taxation of acquisition tax, etc., and the Plaintiff trusted it and filed a non-taxation report, thereby

(b).