1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s land on May 17, 2018 and one parcel other than Mapo-gu Seoul and one parcel against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this part is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of adding “14 households” (the exclusive use area of each household is 60 square meters or less) to “19 February 19, 2014,” and “14 households” on the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., “19 February 19, 2014.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 33(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act requires that the purpose of sale should be from the commencement to the completion of the construction work, not from the completion of the construction work, and does not require that the purpose of sale should be continuously maintained or that sale should be carried out actually. The Plaintiff made efforts to sell the instant house to the Non-Party Corporation by continuously advertising for sale from the time when the construction work of the instant house is completed, and entering into a lease contract after the date of approval for use of the instant house. The Plaintiff’s filing of an application for purchase of the instant house with the Non-Party Corporation constitutes a case where the sale is not successful, and the purchase approval was approved only after the expiration of the approval date for use of the instant house, so it does not interfere with recognizing the purpose of sale. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff constructed the instant house for the purpose of sale, it is difficult to determine whether the acquisition tax of the instant house has been reduced or exempted, and the Defendant also did not have any justifiable reason for the Plaintiff’s tax reduction or exemption until the date of sale.

Therefore, at least the instant disposition.