1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who was engaged in the manufacturing business of industrial machinery with the trade name “B” from July 1, 1993.

B. On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building 5,041.22 square meters on the ground of the above land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 18, 2013, after acquiring a building of 12,240.3 square meters in Yongsan-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

C. The Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax, etc. by the Defendant on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes real estate acquired by a person who seeks to construct a new industrial building, etc. in an industrial complex pursuant to Article 78(4) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same).

On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff invested the instant real estate in kind in B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant corporation”) and acquired 529,300 shares (10%) from the said corporation, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 26, 2013 for the said corporation’s investment in kind.

(hereinafter “instant investment in kind”) e.

On August 8, 2016, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 334,831,200 and local education tax of KRW 24,373,950 on the Plaintiff on August 8, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate without directly using it for the pertinent purpose.

(f) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 2, 2016, but was dismissed on December 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 10, 11, Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The key issue of the instant case is that the Plaintiff acquired real estate in an industrial complex and used it directly for less than two years, and the said real estate was invested in kind for the purpose of corporate conversion.