1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment is added to the reasoning of the judgment under Paragraph (2) as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

The 8th parallel 16 to 9th parallels are as follows.

5) Since the Plaintiffs acquired each of the instant real estate at the auction procedure, the Plaintiffs’ acquisition of each of the instant real estate constitutes acquisition by succession.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and all of the plaintiffs' arguments are without merit.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Additional determination

A. Article 6 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14475, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter “amended Local Tax Act”) newly established a provision that excludes real estate existing subject to taxation from the scope of original acquisition in applying acquisition tax rates, thereby restricting the scope of original acquisition to “where no taxable object exists in the existing”.

If interpreting the purpose of the revised Local Tax Act contrary to the amendment, the "original acquisition" under the former Local Tax Act includes cases where real estate subject to taxation has been existing.

Since the Plaintiffs acquired each of the instant real estate prior to the enforcement of the amended Local Tax Act, the above revised Local Tax Act that limits the scope of original acquisition with respect to the acquisition of each of the instant real estate is disadvantageous to taxation.

It is against the principle of no taxation without law because it applies retroactively a case.

B. The plaintiffs' above assertion is based on the premise that the acquisition of real estate through the auction procedure constitutes the original acquisition under the former Local Tax Act. As seen earlier, since the acquisition of real estate through the auction procedure is not the original acquisition under the former Local Tax Act, there is no room to apply the above revised provisions of Article 6 of the Local Tax Act that limit the scope of original acquisition.

The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit without examining it.

3. Conclusion.