1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned three buildings, including three buildings on the ground of Samsung-gun, Samsung-gun, Samsung-gun, Samsung-gun, and five buildings on the ground of the same Ri 959-2, and five buildings on the ground of the same Ri 962, and the Defendant is a local government having jurisdiction over the above factory and its location.

(b) a.

The indications on the register of each operating building among the buildings mentioned in paragraph shall be as follows:

- A 27,413.01 square meters factory (factory, warehouse), 27,413.01 square meters factory (factory, warehouse), 736.88 square meters - A 2nd floor of a warehouse, Samsung-gun, Samsung-gun, a general steel structure operated under 959-2, a reinforced concrete structure board board, a scarb roof, a two-story factory (factory, warehouse, warehouse, office), 7,639.21 square meters of 2nd floor of 875.8 square meters of 2nd floor of a factory (factory, warehouse, office).

C. From 2012 to 2016, the Defendant determined that the structural index was 100, the usage index was 80, and the location index was 88 square meters as 1st 22,416.74 square meters, 4,96.27 square meters, and 2nd 736.88 square meters and 5,033.35 square meters, 2,284.91 square meters, and 548.82 square meters among 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2012, the Defendant imposed property tax, local education tax and local education tax on the Plaintiff based on the above tax base.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the Claimant

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the structure of the instant building is a general steel structure or a main wall is a prefabricated panel, which can easily be seen as the land, and thus, in calculating the tax base of the instant building, the structural index should have been applied to steel-frame 60 (from 2012 to 2015) or 75 (the imposition amount in 2016). However, the Defendant’s calculation of the tax base by applying 100 of the structural index constitutes a significant and obvious defect and thus becomes null and void.

Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff.