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 December 13, 2010, the Financial Investment Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) completed the registration of tourist accommodation business (retail condominium business) with respect to the business of recreation condominiums (retail condominium business) that was newly constructed on the lots of 770 and 48, the west-si, the Mai-si, the Mai-si, the Mai-si, the Mai-si

B. On April 15, 2011, the Plaintiff, among the above condominiums, sold in lots from the non-party company Nos. 302 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), filed and paid acquisition tax calculated by applying the standard tax rate (4%) stipulated in Article 11(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11137, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) to the acquisition of the instant real estate on April 29, 2011 after completing the registration of the transfer of ownership.

C. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff used the instant real estate exclusively or exclusively for the purpose of relaxation, summering, and play as a residential building, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant real estate falls under “a villa” under Article 13(5)1 of the former Local Tax Act; and (b) imposed acquisition tax, 98,265,030, special rural development tax, 9,826,480, 108,091,51,510 on the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013, which was calculated by applying the heavy tax rate (16%) under the said provision, following the review on the legality of taxation prior to the imposition of the said tax.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the said request was dismissed on August 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a residential building as part of a resort condominium, which is a tourist accommodation facility, and the Plaintiff used the instant real estate for the purpose of business, such as a conference and workshop, rather than a resort facility for its officers and employees.