1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

. Doese.

On November 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a separate notice of taxation to the Plaintiff and the Selection. The notice of taxation is indicated as follows: “The instant house constitutes a separate sheet stipulated in Article 13(5) of the former Local Tax Act; thus, the Plaintiff and the Selection shall report and pay acquisition tax at the time of acquiring the instant house (based on Article 13(5) of the former Local Tax Act). However, the Plaintiff and the Selection reported and paid the difference only by applying the standard tax rate, and thus, make a prior notice of taxation to collect the difference as follows: (i) acquisition tax shall be imposed on the aggregate of KRW 27,718,180,543,630, additional tax on negligent tax returns, KRW 374,190,00 in total, KRW 33,636,00, KRW 2,71,810, KRW 37,410,000 for the principal tax on agricultural special taxation, and KRW 37,410 for additional payment.”

The notice of the instant disposition contains “Articles 1 through 154 of the Local Tax Act, 20% of the acquisition tax rate, 5,543,630,” “acquisition tax rate of 0.03*120, tax amount of 97,850,” etc.

On November 29, 2016, after receipt of the notice of pre-announcement of taxation, the Plaintiff and the designated person filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on November 29, 2016, stating that “I have no choice but to own the house of this case in any inevitable circumstances, and have resided for sale and farming day of the house, but they have filed a request for pre-assessment review only once for a strike, rest and rest in accordance with the use of the villa.”

On January 12, 2017, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do dismissed the claim on the ground that the Plaintiff and the designated person did not acquire the instant house as a villa, but used the instant house as a villa as of the expiration of four years after its acquisition.

[Ground of recognition] We find out that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8 through 16, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 8 through 11, and that there is a procedural defect in the purport of the whole pleadings.