1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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 in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, thereby citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the bottom of the 11th judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant, who is the tax authority, could be taxed by applying the property tax rate of 5/1000 to the transformation facilities of this case, due to any special circumstance.

Rather, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3 and the argument, the Defendant: (a) confirmed the fact that the instant substation is located in a residential area by applying the tax rate of 2.5/1,000 of the tax base to the instant substation; and (b) rendered the instant disposition imposing property tax and local education tax by applying the tax rate of 5/1,000, which is the tax rate of Article 111(1)2(b) of the Local Tax Act on February 10, 2017.

The following shall be added at least 15 pages of the judgment of the first instance:

A golf course or building for a high-class recreation center under Article 13 (5): 40/100 of the tax base;

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.