1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on September 14, 2001 in order to engage in the business of manufacturing, selling, and trading building materials.

나. 원고는 2009. 11. 11. 아파트형공장인 서울 송파구 문정동 632 소재 가든파이브웍스 A동 202호(이하 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라 한다)를 분양받아 취득하였다.

The Plaintiff applied for local tax reduction and exemption under Article 24 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City City Tax Reduction and Exemption Ordinance (hereinafter “Reduction and Exemption Ordinance”) on the ground that the instant real estate was real estate acquired by a small and medium entrepreneur for the purpose of engaging in manufacturing business, and was exempted from acquisition and registration taxes.

C. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) conducted a field investigation on the instant real estate; and (b) deemed that the Plaintiff’s instant real estate constitutes grounds for additional collection under the proviso to Article 24(2) of the Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption by using it for any purpose other than that for manufacturing business within five years from the date of acquisition, and thus, (c) imposed on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2014, KRW 12,394,330 (including additional taxes) including acquisition tax of KRW 5,473,80, registration tax of KRW 5,373,00,010, and special rural development tax of KRW 547,360, and local education tax of KRW 1,00

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on November 28, 2014, but was dismissed on January 26, 2015 (Notice of February 2, 2015), and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 29, 2015, but was dismissed on November 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate used the instant real estate for a factory purpose by performing the work of manufacturing small windows and shock networks and assembling small scale systems, creative parts, etc. in the instant real estate.

In addition, the real estate of this case is essential for the plaintiff to operate the factory.