The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 182(1)3(e) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”); Article 182(1)3(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 201; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act”) was wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Jan. 1, 2011; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act”) and Article 132(5)8 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 106(1)3(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act”) provides housing construction projects subject to separate taxation under Article 182(1)3(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

In full view of the differences between a housing construction project subject to approval of a project plan under the Housing Act and a housing construction project that does not fall under such a scope and the specific use area of the site, etc., the impact on the national residential life is different; and in cases of a housing construction project subject to approval of a project plan under the Housing Act, various regulations such as installation of incidental facilities and welfare facilities, observance of housing construction standards, etc. are followed, and in cases of a housing construction project that is excluded from approval of a project plan under the Housing Act, such regulations are not subject to such regulations. As such, Article 132(5)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act before the amendment and Article 102(5)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (hereinafter