1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 13, 201, the Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of distributing, processing, and selling agricultural products; on June 17, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired a monthly 1302 square meters of land 3,708 square meters and buildings on the ground thereof (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The instant real estate was exempted from acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that it was acquired by an agricultural corporation to use directly for farming pursuant to Article 11(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 11618, Jan. 1, 2013).

B. As a result of an on-site investigation conducted on July 18, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had not used the instant real estate directly for farming within one year from the date of acquisition, and on September 3, 2012, imposed acquisition tax of KRW 17,483,040, special rural development tax of KRW 874,150, and local education tax of KRW 1,604,30,00, which was reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 94 subparagraph 1 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the Plaintiff on September 3,

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 13, 2013 on November 15, 2012, but the appeal was dismissed on May 9, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2, 5 through 8, Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff used the instant real estate for farming purposes, such as growing crops or conducting prior farming training on the Natural Agriculture Act, to cultivate the instant real estate. 2) Even if the Plaintiff did not directly use the instant real estate for farming purposes, the instant real estate was acquired by the former owner through a government-subsidized project, and it was impossible for the Plaintiff to change the instant real estate for any purpose other than the specific purpose and was not used for farming purposes. The purpose of use of the instant real estate was changed at the time of acquisition by the Defendant and other administrative agencies.