1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, etc.: (a) the Plaintiff: (a) the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the forest of 95-1, 38,479 square meters; and (b) 67,041 square meters in each of the instant forests (hereinafter “each of the instant forests”; and (c) the individual land is referring only to the lot number) and

1. It is the owner of a total of six pieces of land (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) as indicated in the table.

B. As of June 1, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 38,392,830 on the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff on September 5, 2016, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff constitutes subject to total aggregate taxation, and imposed KRW 7,616,930 on the Plaintiff’s land.

(C) 50% reduction and exemption provisions were applied to 18,699.5 square meters designated as neighboring green parks among forests in mountain 96.

On October 25, 2017, the Defendant decided to reduce the property tax on the Plaintiff’s land as KRW 35,602,440, and local education tax as KRW 7,058,850 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s land is eligible for exemption of property tax pursuant to Article 41(2) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, and that the Plaintiff’s land is used as a school playground and road among 3,332 square meters and 1,08 square meters among 96 forest land in Mountain 95-1. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff thereof.

(As above, the disposition of imposing property tax and local education tax on September 5, 2016, which was reduced as of September 5, 2016, shall be referred to as the "disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] of no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 5 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff created an environmental ecological center in each forest of this case, and used it directly for the educational business, such as the Plaintiff’s use of it in the course of study with the New University Biotechnology, operated by the Plaintiff. (2) On July 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the urban management planning (school) on the aggregate of the total area of the forest area of 95-1,000,000,000 and the total area of 19,791 square meters among the forest areas of 96,00,000, Namyang-gu, Namyang-do, the total area of 9,602 square meters among the forest areas of this case.