1. On November 13, 2013, the Defendant imposed penalty tax of KRW 7,739,140 on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained permission for the construction (extension) of helicopter repair and operation units (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, a building for education from the Defendant; and (b) obtained approval for the use on July 11, 2013.

B. As to the extension of the instant building, the Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax pursuant to Article 41(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same).

C. Even if acquisition tax on the extension of the instant building is exempted, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 7,739,140 on November 13, 2013 pursuant to Article 53-2(1) of the former Framework Act on Local Taxes (amended by Act No. 12512, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the premise that the Plaintiff is obligated to file a return on acquisition tax within 60 days after the approval for use.

On January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review on January 14, 2014, but the Board of Audit and Inspection decided to dismiss the request on May 14, 2015.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Where the Plaintiff’s alleged local tax payer acquires real estate and fails to file an application for exemption from acquisition tax or pay and pay acquisition tax within 60 days, acquisition tax calculated by applying the Local Tax Act and the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act shall be zero won, and no additional tax may be imposed on non-return. Even if the Plaintiff’s obligation to report exists, there is justifiable cause that cannot be caused by nonperformance of obligation, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful. 2) Article 53(3) of the former Framework Act on Local Taxes alleged by the Defendant’s assertion that the penalty tax is not included in the reduction of local tax, and the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.