1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as admitting the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Supplementary and additional Plaintiff asserts as follows.

The land of this case was used as a private ground following the new construction of the office building of the Incheon Regional Police Agency, and the head of a private ground is also required for the construction of the appurtenant land and the project owner bears the cost of the incidental land. Therefore, the land of this case constitutes property used for official or public purposes by the Commissioner of the Incheon Regional Police Agency as the project owner.

Furthermore, it is unreasonable to interpret Article 109(2) of the Local Tax Act as “property used by the State, a local government, or a local government association for a public or public purpose for at least one year in accordance with the definition of the State Property Act or the Public Property and Commodity Management Act.” It is not reasonable to interpret as “property used by the State, a local government, or a local government association for a public or public purpose” by referring to

Therefore, the instant land falls under the subject of property tax exemption stipulated in the main sentence of Article 109(2) of the former Local Tax Act, and the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

The main text of Article 109(2) of the former Local Tax Act provides that “property used for public or public purposes” rather than “property used by the State, a local government or a local government association,” and as stated in the first instance judgment cited by this court, it can be said that the property tax is owned by the State or a local government, the principle of strict interpretation of tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the relationship with Article 19(1) of the former Local Tax Act, and the basic law on property owned and managed by the State or a local government.