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 March 31, 201, the Plaintiff acquired at KRW 700,000,000, Gangnam-gu Seoul Building No. 1202 (hereinafter “instant housing”).

On May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 7,00,000, local education tax amounting to KRW 700,000, and KRW 700,000,00, by applying reduction provisions for acquisition tax on “temporary two housing owners” under Article 40-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 10654, May 19, 201; Act No. 11138, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same).

B. On April 10, 2014, the Defendant imposed and collected assessment on the Plaintiff on the ground that “The instant house was additionally acquired with the ownership of a total of nine houses at the time of acquiring the instant house, and thus, it is subject to reduction by 50/100 of acquisition tax on “multi-family housing holders” under Article 40-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act,” and imposed an assessment on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff of KRW 10,596,60 (including additional tax 3,596,600), and the local education tax 9,660 (including additional tax 289,660).

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition on imposition of additional tax and local education tax". C.

The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on April 28, 2014, but did not have been decided by the Tax Tribunal until now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff explained that he was a multi-family housing owner at the time of filing the acquisition tax return on the housing of this case, and that "a rental house after the registration of a rental business operator is not included in the number of houses pursuant to Article 154 (10) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and should be regarded as a single house owner." If the public official in charge of the defendant confirmed and informed that the plaintiff is subject to reduction of 50/100 of the acquisition tax through the computer network, the plaintiff would have paid it accurately.