1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In imposing property tax on July 1, 2014 on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff as of June 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Defendant calculated property tax amounting to KRW 142,820, urban planning tax, KRW 79,980, and local education tax by applying the standard tax rate to the tax base of KRW 142,820, KRW 70, KRW 79,980, and KRW 28,560. In the case of local resource and facility tax, the Defendant calculated local resource and facility tax on the instant real estate as of July 21, 2014, by deeming that the instant real estate falls under a heavy fire-hazardous building (a high-rise building with at least 11 floors, which is not a residence), and imposed tax on the Plaintiff on July 21, 2014, based on the standard tax rate of KRW 300,020,000 applied pursuant to Article 146(2) of the Local Tax Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but was dismissed on September 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Defendant on the ground of 9,944 square meters in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant disposition was rendered by deeming that the instant real estate is located in the main complex building above the instant land. However, the instant land is constructed in an independent state between the instant officetel and the 4th underground floor used as an apartment, the 39th underground floor used as an apartment, the 1st underground floor used as an apartment, and the 1st underground floor used as a commercial building above the ground, and the 3rd underground floor. The instant real estate is located in the 1st underground floor and the 3rd ground floor among the foregoing condominiums, and thus, it does not constitute subject to heavy taxation under Article 146(2) of the Local Tax Act.

On the other hand, the plaintiff and the defendant should evaluate the building on the land of this case as one building, and evaluate it as three independent buildings.