1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or deletion of some contents as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "Terms and Conditions of Housing Sale Guarantee (Evidence A2-2)" in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The third part of the decision of the court of first instance is "the margin of the occupancy fee" in the 27th part of the decision of the court of first instance.

The phrase “B No. 4” shall be deleted from the grounds for recognition of the fifth sentence of the first instance judgment.

Part 7 of the 8th judgment of the first instance court states " October 28, 2013" as "No. 23, 2008."

The Local Tax Act of 8th and 9th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be respectively referred to as the "former Local Tax Act".

The 9th written judgment of the first instance court is based on the 14th written written judgment, “Seo-Mauritius’s Day” of the 9th written judgment.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, since "812,080 won for special rural development tax" in Article 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "80,813,080 won".