1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on January 24, 201 for the purpose of medical devices, precise machinery manufacturing, wholesale and retail business, etc.

B. On May 25, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired factory sites of 12,107 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land”) in Cheongju-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, which is a land within the ozone Bioscience Complex. Pursuant to Articles 6 and 120(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax, etc., and the annual interest rate of 610 was divided into 610-1 and annual interest rate of 610-2 on April 28, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) No. 610-2

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff newly constructed the 563.2 square meters of the 2nd, the 563.2 square meters of the 2nd, the 563.2 square meters of the 1st, the 1st, and the 1st, the general steel structure, and the 326.4 square meters of the 326.4 square meters of the 5th, a single-story factory (hereinafter “instant factory”).

On September 14, 2015, the Defendant imposed property tax of 7,146,870 won for year 2015 and local education tax of 975,030 won for local education tax and 8,121,90 won for total amount of 8,121,90 won for small and medium start-up enterprises, etc. provided for in Article 58-3(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12637, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the Plaintiff, on the ground that the instant land is not used directly for the Plaintiff’s relevant business, and does not fall under the application of the said provision.

(hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction was suspended due to financial problems, etc. while obtaining a construction permit for factory construction on the instant land. As such, the construction period has not elapsed as of June 1, 2015, which was the tax base date for the year 2015, and the construction was suspended.