1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of additional dues shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned and operated the building and dormitory, etc. of the C Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) on the ground as the Plaintiff owned and operated the land outside B and nine parcels of the Gu Government.

B. Pursuant to Article 38(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, the Plaintiff was exempted from property tax, local education tax, and local resource and facility tax on the instant real estate, on the ground that it constitutes real estate used directly by a medical corporation for medical services.

C. However, the Defendant confirmed that C Hospital continued to suspend its business from September 11, 2010 as a result of conducting a tax investigation in writing regarding local tax in 2014, and on April 14, 2015, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the property tax, etc. exempted from 2011 to 2014, as shown in the attached list, on the ground that the instant real estate was not a real estate used directly for the medical service.

(hereinafter “instant disposition on April 14, 2015.” The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on March 7, 2016.

On November 11, 2016, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of property tax, etc. on the instant real estate due to the delinquency in payment of property tax, etc. on the instant real estate, as shown in the attached list, as well as additional dues thereon.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition as of November 11, 2016,” and each of the above dispositions is combined with “each of the instant dispositions.” 【The ground for recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and Eul’s No. 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. We examine whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of each additional dues is legitimate ex officio.

The Plaintiff, before November 11, 2016, was not served with a tax payment notice of property tax, etc. for the instant real estate in 2016. As such, the Plaintiff was on November 11, 2016.