1. Acquisition tax imposed on the Plaintiff on September 4, 2014 by the Defendant, KRW 359,771,530, local education tax, KRW 33,276,760, and special rural development tax.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired a medical corporation established pursuant to Article 48 of the Medical Service Act, and filed an application for exemption from acquisition tax, etc. pursuant to Article 38(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11618, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act”) with the Defendant on the same day on the same day. The Defendant exempted the application.

B. On June 13, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that, as a result of the fact-finding survey on real estate subject to acquisition tax reduction and exemption, the Plaintiff filed a report on the commencement of construction for the construction of a hospital after the lapse of one year and two months from the date on which the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of acquisition tax, etc. to be collected additionally on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not directly use the instant land within one year from the date

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on August 27, 2014, but the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do decided not to adopt the tax, and on September 4, 2014, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 359,771,530, local education tax of KRW 33,276,760, and special rural development tax of KRW 15,288,190 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions in this case, filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul's 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 removed existing factory buildings after the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, and concluded a construction contract to build a hospital on the instant land to build a new site, it cannot be deemed that the instant land was not used directly for the medical business.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s land of this case.