1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 28, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Ulsan-gun B, Ulsan-gun, 1663.80 square meters, and four-story buildings on the said land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) with a view to purchasing the sales price of more than 650 million won, and the sales price of which is to be paid on the date of the contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). On the same day, a certified judicial scrivener D reported acquisition tax and registration tax to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, along with a certificate of completion of real estate transaction contract under the instant sales contract.

B. The Defendant confirmed that the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 111(1) and (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10340, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter the same) is below the statutory standard, and issued a written notice of payment and a written notice of payment of acquisition tax, the total of KRW 18,851,340, and KRW 1,885,130, and KRW 20,736,470, and the Plaintiff did not pay acquisition tax within 30 days from the date of acquisition of the instant real estate.

C. Accordingly, on April 9, 2010, the Defendant imposed KRW 20,972,860 on the Plaintiff on the sum of KRW 19,06,240, and KRW 1,906,620, and KRW 20,972,860, which added the acquisition tax for unfaithful payment pursuant to Article 121(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On the other hand, on October 31, 2012, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of E on the ground of sale by voluntary auction.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3 through 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the instant real estate around January 2010, the remainder due to the Plaintiff’s reasons.