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 August 13, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Korea Land Corporation, which was prior to the merger with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on August 13, 2009, to pay the purchase price of KRW 34,284,00,00 for the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”), and to pay KRW 34,284,00 for the contract deposit on the date of the contract, KRW 77,256,00 for the first installment of February 13, 2010, KRW 77,256,00 for the first installment of August 13, 2010, and February 13, 2011; and to pay KRW 77,10,000 for each installment of KRW 77,00,000 for each installment of August 29, 2011; and to pay KRW 984,000 for each purchase price to the Korea Land Corporation on February 29, 2012>

B. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, Korea Land Corporation, and D entered into a contract for succession to rights and obligations with the content that succeeded to the Plaintiff’s status as a buyer. D pays the Plaintiff the unpaid KRW 1,554,290 and overdue interest KRW 270,730, out of the purchase price on the same day, to the Korea Land Corporation, and received the transfer of ownership from the Korea Land Corporation.

C. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff actually acquired the instant land as of February 29, 2012; (b) imposed acquisition tax of KRW 19,966,720 (including additional tax of KRW 6,367,260); (c) local education tax of KRW 1,724,670 (including additional tax of KRW 364,730); and (d) special rural development tax of KRW 862,330 (including additional tax of KRW 182,360) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6-2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) cannot be deemed as having actually acquired the instant land on February 29, 2012, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise. 2) Inasmuch as it was difficult for the Plaintiff, a general public, to know that the Plaintiff was obligated to pay acquisition tax even if it did not pay all the remainder, it constitutes a case of acquisition. Therefore, the penalty tax portion among the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b).