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 December 13, 2010, the Financial Investment Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) completed the registration of tourist accommodation business (retail condominium business) with respect to the business of recreation condominiums (retail condominium business) that was newly constructed on the lots of 770 and 48, the west-si, the Mai-si, the Mai-si, the Mai-si, the Mai-si

B. On May 3, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased the pertinent condominium No. 31 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Nonparty Company and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 3, 201, and filed and paid acquisition tax, etc. calculated by applying the standard tax rate (4%) under Article 11(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11137, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) with respect to the acquisition of the instant real estate.

C. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff used the instant real estate exclusively or exclusively for the purpose of relaxation, summering, and play as a residential building, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant real estate falls under “a villa” under Article 13(5)1 of the former Local Tax Act; and (b) imposed KRW 296,091,270, the special rural development tax, KRW 29,609, KRW 110, KRW 325,70,380, which was calculated by applying the heavy tax rate (16%) under the said provision to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the said request was dismissed on August 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a residential building, as part of a resort condominium, which is a tourist accommodation facility, and the Plaintiff does not exclusively use the instant real estate. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the instant real estate constitutes a villa subject to acquisition tax as prescribed by the former Local Tax Act.