1. The Defendant’s second term portion 18,021,40 won against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2014, and the first term portion of 20,146,830 won for the year 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 28, 2008, pursuant to Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the former Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure (amended by Act No. 7386 of Jan. 27, 2005 and amended by Act No. 10983 of Aug. 4, 2011; hereinafter “former Public-Private Partnerships Act”), the Plaintiff constructed school facilities, etc. at his/her own expense and vests the ownership of the Plaintiff in Incheon Metropolitan City. The Plaintiff entered into an concession agreement (hereinafter “instant concession agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiff would receive rent and operating expenses from Incheon Metropolitan City while managing and operating the above school facilities, etc.

B. According to the instant concession agreement, the Plaintiff newly constructed school facilities, etc. from March 2009 to October 201, 2013, from the date of the instant concession agreement and reverted to Incheon Metropolitan City.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant facilities”) the Plaintiff constructed.

On November 7, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff was a real estate rental business entity, while filing a value-added tax return on the government-paid funds (rents and operating expenses) received from Incheon Metropolitan City during the second period from the second period to the first period from 2010 to the first period from 2013, the Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff each of the imposition of customs duties of KRW 23,827,570 for the second period from the second period from 2010 for the second period from 2010 for the second period, KRW 18,021,40 for the first period from 20,146,830 for the second period from 20,146,830 for the second period from 2011, KRW 22,24,290 for the second period from 2012, KRW 23,827,290 for the second period from 2012, KRW 23,853,340 for the first period from 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant laws.