1. Acquisition tax, special rural development tax, and local education tax, which the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on September 13, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 5, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained from the Defendant on November 5, 2001, approval for the use of the instant building with the acquisition tax of KRW 11,582,670,670, KRW 4,211,80, KRW 80, KRW 370, KRW 16,636, and KRW 16,636, and KRW 205, and KRW 11,585,270, and KRW 11,570, KRW 4,211,80, KRW 80, KRW 842, KRW 370, KRW 842, KRW 370, KRW 376, KRW 1636, and KRW 1636,925, and KRW 205, and filed a return on the preservation of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff on the instant building.

B. On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax of KRW 5,870,810, local education tax, KRW 335,470, and KRW 6,625,620, total amount of KRW 419,340,340, total of KRW 6,625,620, as of July 22, 2016, based on the current base value of KRW 209,671,956, which is calculated by applying 28/1,00, the original acquisition tax rate of KRW 28/1,00, as of July 22, 2016.

C. On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff imposed tax on the Defendant with respect to the instant extension portion, acquisition tax, local education tax, and special rural development tax that the Plaintiff filed with respect to the instant extension portion, on the basis of which the current base is double taxation, imposing tax on the current base is double taxation. The actual construction cost of the instant extension portion is KRW 10,285,00 (including value-added tax) and KRW 200,000,000 (including value-added tax), which is merely KRW 200,000,000, which is the current base value. As such, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to reduce the amount of acquisition tax based on the actual construction cost as the tax base, but the Defendant, on September 13, 201, constitutes a building subject to acquisition tax and constitutes a building subject to taxation on December 5, 201.