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 November 1, 2006, the Open Tourist Development Co., Ltd. completed the registration of a tourist accommodation business as to the Open-gu B condominium (hereinafter “instant condominium”).

B. On June 18, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased 103 Dong 101 among the instant condominiums (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Young Tourism Development Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, and reported and paid acquisition tax, etc. calculated by applying the general tax rate after completing the registration of transfer of ownership.

C. The Defendant determined the instant real estate as a villa on the ground that the Plaintiff used the instant real estate exclusively or exclusively for the purpose of recreation, summering, amusement, etc. as a residential building. On July 6, 2011, the Defendant imposed a special tax amount of KRW 215,492,220 (including additional tax of KRW 63,179,370), special tax for rural development, special tax for rural development, 21,549,200 (including additional tax of KRW 6,317,920) on the Plaintiff under Article 112(2)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an objection with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, but was dismissed on December 1, 201, and again requested a new trial to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on September 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including any number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is conducting business related to the export of goods by the defense industry requiring high level security. The plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case for business consultation in a separate place other than the office located in Seoul, and the plaintiff actually used the real estate for business consultation, and for the purpose of rest, summering, amusement, etc. of officers and employees.