1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: “The former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24501, Mar. 24, 2013)” is amended by the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013) and, except for adding the following determination, it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance; therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion may be used in duplicate to achieve the same legislative purpose, even if LH Corporation was exempted from acquisition tax pursuant to Article 32 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act to achieve the same legislative purpose, it cannot be deemed unreasonable for the Plaintiff to be exempted from acquisition tax pursuant to the provisions of this case, and the Plaintiff’s exemption from acquisition tax by applying the preferential provisions of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act only to LH Corporation is discrimination against the Plaintiff in the same legal status.

B. In a case where a housing construction business operator agreed to sell at least five units of multi-family housing with an exclusive area of 60 square meters or less from the beginning to construct a multi-family housing with an exclusive area of 60 square meters or less and sells it en bloc to LH Corporation, if LH is exempted from acquisition tax pursuant to Article 32 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, the legislative purpose of promoting the supply of multi-family housing can be deemed to have been sufficiently achieved. Therefore, construing that the “sale” of this case, which has the same legislative purpose, is included in the “sale” of multi-family housing, as the provision of this case, which has the same legislative purpose, is deemed to be an excessive overlapping application of the preferential provision. Therefore,