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 December 5, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax of KRW 6,400,000,00 to the Defendant on the same day by applying the provision on reduction of 75/100 of acquisition tax for “one house owner” under Article 40-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 11042, Sep. 15, 201); and (b) local education tax of KRW 6,400,00, local education tax of KRW 640,000. On March 2, 2015, the Defendant already owned the instant house at the time of acquiring the instant house (hereinafter “previous house”); and (c) on the same day, the Plaintiff did not include the previous house or additional tax of KRW 108,610,00 in Seoul, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, and KRW 75,70,000, including the acquisition tax or additional tax of KRW 75,707 (hereinafter “the aforementioned provision on reduction or exemption of acquisition tax”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on March 30, 2015, but was dismissed by the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on June 24, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul No. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's claim 1 is that the plaintiff acquired the previous house for the leasing business.

Articles 97(2) and 97-2(2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide that “rental housing shall not be deemed a house owned by the relevant resident.” This purport is to exclude rental housing, which serves as a means of livelihood or business, from the housing for the purpose of determining the number of houses, and thus, it does not include rental housing even in “one house” as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 40-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.