The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Article 13(2)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) and Article 27(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24425, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) provide that acquisition tax shall be imposed only on real estate to be used directly for the purpose of the main office, branch, or branch, or sub-branch, and real estate to be acquired in a large city within five years after its establishment and transfer (hereinafter “former provision”) shall be imposed on real estate to be used directly for the main office, branch, or branch, prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security (hereinafter “office, etc.”), and acquisition tax shall be imposed on real estate subject to transfer within five years after its establishment and transfer, regardless of whether its establishment and transfer to the main office or branch, etc.

In addition, Article 13(2)1 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 27(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) Article 6(1) of the former Enforcement Rule (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Security, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) that provides for the scope of “office, etc.

Meanwhile, Article 13(2)2 of the former Local Tax Act provides that a factory shall be newly constructed or expanded in a large city separate from subparagraph 1.