1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs acquired each of the separate sections of the Suwon-gu Office Officetel A (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Suwon-si, the use of which was approved as of September 28, 2018.

The Plaintiffs paid acquisition tax, etc. to the Defendant by applying the tax rate (40/1,00) under Article 11(1)7 (b) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 16194, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”).

B. On February 20, 2019, the Plaintiffs asserted that the tax rate (10/1,00) of the provision of this case should apply to the Defendant on the ground that the instant real estate is business facilities (offices) on the building ledger, but is actually used for residential purposes and constitutes “housing with a value of less than 600 million won at the time of acquisition” under Article 11(1)8 of the former Local Tax Act (hereinafter “instant provision”), and filed a request for correction, such as acquisition tax, etc.

C. On March 15, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting a claim for correction, such as acquisition tax, on the ground that the instant real estate does not fall under housing stipulated in the instant provision (hereinafter “instant rejection disposition”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-51, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is a residential officetel with the substance of the housing.

Property tax, comprehensive real estate tax, etc. imposes the same taxation on residential officetels, such as the instant real estate, as “house”.

On the other hand, the instant provision is unconstitutional against the principle of tax equality and substance over form principle, which discriminates against the owners of residential officetels without reasonable grounds.

Each rejection disposition of this case is unlawful since it was rendered based on the provision of this case which is unconstitutional.

(b) relevant legislation;