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 August 13, 2013, the head of Dongdaemun-gu imposed acquisition tax and registration tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired 97-1 large 1,593 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and did not use it for public works, such as religion, within three years from the date of acquisition without justifiable grounds, and the Plaintiff paid it.

B. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the head of Dongdaemun-gu seeking revocation of the imposition of acquisition tax and registration tax (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu56736), and the head of Dongdaemun-gu decided to revoke the said imposition on January 13, 2015, and refund the Plaintiff KRW 427,85,430 in total, acquisition tax and registration tax on January 14, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant refund”). C.

On February 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a seizure disposition against the instant refund by taking the Plaintiff, the garnishee, and the third debtor as the head of Dongdaemun-gu and the amount of delinquent taxes of KRW 200,838,970.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry Eul in the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land is real estate title trusted to the Plaintiff and the instant refund should belong to the Maternal Society. The Defendant seized the instant refund and appropriated it to the amount of delinquent local taxes of the Maternal Society affiliated with the Plaintiff. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful.

In addition, the disposition of this case is procedural defect not notified of the disposition pursuant to Article 91 (4) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes.

B. The determination of real estate acquisition tax is a local tax based on the fact that the transfer of goods is a transfer of goods and recognized the ability to pay taxes. Thus, whether a real estate acquisitor acquires the ownership of the real estate in substance, as prescribed by Article 7(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014).