The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found the following facts: ① The Plaintiff returned and paid the comprehensive real estate holding tax and the special tax for rural development (hereinafter “comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc.”) for the real estate subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax, including the land of 607-640 square meters and 47 square meters in Gangseo-gu, Busan, which was designated as cultural heritage pursuant to the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (hereinafter “instant land”) on the real estate subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax, including the land of 66,767 square meters in Gangseo-dong, Gangseo-gu, Busan, which was designated as cultural heritage pursuant to the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; ② The Plaintiff recognized that most of the whole country local governments were exempt from comprehensive real estate holding tax reduction and exemption by applying the Ordinance on Property Tax Reduction and Exemption under Article 6(2) of the former Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (hereinafter “Ordinance on Property Tax Reduction and Exemption”). On the ground that the Busan Metropolitan City did not have the aforementioned Municipal Ordinance, which was in breach of the principle of tax equality, and thus, the Defendant rejected the instant disposition.

Then, the court below held that the comprehensive real estate holding tax is granted to local governments in full pursuant to the Local Subsidy Act, and thus it cannot be deemed that there is no nature of local tax. The issue of whether local tax is exempted pursuant to Articles 7 and 9 of the former Local Tax Act shall be determined by each local government according to their respective needs, whether to enact ordinances on local tax exemption, and what contents of such ordinances are belongs to the autonomy of local governments, etc.