1. The Defendant’s imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 27,634,180 against the Plaintiff on October 20, 2014 exceeds KRW 7,573,160.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff began to construct two-story buildings of general steel structure (a total floor area of 379.56 square meters, total floor area of 759.12 square meters, Class 2 neighborhood living facilities for main purposes; hereinafter “instant building”) on some of the ground of 1,978 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu (hereinafter “land prior to division”), C, C, 22 square meters, D, 225 square meters, E, and E, 260 square meters, and obtained approval for use on July 4, 2014.

B. On July 24, 2014, the entire land category before subdivision was changed to “site” upon the Plaintiff’s application by an architect delegated by the Plaintiff.

C. On July 31, 2014, a certified judicial scrivener delegated by the Plaintiff reported acquisition tax of KRW 27,395,840 on the premise that the land category of the entire land before subdivision was changed due to approval for use of the building of this case, but the Plaintiff did not pay it.

On October 20, 2014, pursuant to Articles 7(4) and 10(3) of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 13427, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25545, Aug. 12, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendant imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff KRW 27,634,180, which is the difference between the standard market price before and after the land category was changed, as the tax base.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

In this regard, the Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 26, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 and 6 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the area related to the construction of the building of this case among the land before the Plaintiff’s assertion is smaller than 170 square meters, the entire land category of the land before the actual waterway partition delegated by the Plaintiff was changed, and thereafter the land category of the remaining part of the land before the partition, excluding the above 170 square meters, among the land before the partition, is again miscellaneous land.