1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B Daepo-si B, 6,448.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On September 14, 2013, the Defendant calculated the value of the instant land based on the officially assessed individual land price of 3,140,000,000 or square meters of land in 2013, and issued a disposition imposing property tax amounting to KRW 14,173,363,400 on the basis of such calculated tax base amounting to KRW 90,459,520, local education tax, and KRW 14,123,360.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal. However, on October 16, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 9, Gap's 10-2, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant calculated the tax base based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2013 in the instant disposition. The publicly assessed individual land price determined in 2013 was erroneous in the selection of a comparative standard land, and is unlawful by significantly losing the balance between the comparative standard land price and the officially assessed land price in neighboring similar lands. As such, the instant disposition is also unlawful.

B. 1) In the event that the subject matter of a prior suit and the subsequent suit are the prior legal relationship in the subsequent suit even if the subject matter of a lawsuit is not identical, if the res judicata effect of the prior suit becomes the prior legal relationship in the subsequent suit, the court of the subsequent suit cannot render a judgment inconsistent with the judgment previously rendered by the court of the previous suit in terms of the one-time resolution of the dispute. 2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on May 24, 2013, asserting that, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7, the determination of individual land price disposition against the Defendant during the period from 2007 to 2014, the confirmation of the invalidity and the revocation thereof were unlawful.