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. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The plaintiff asserts as follows.

Article 111 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides for standard tax rates in each subparagraph, and it does not include heavy taxation, and thus, the transformation station in this case constitutes "other buildings" pursuant to Article 111 (1) 2 (c) of the Local Tax Act.

Furthermore, in relation to the imposition of local resource and facility tax, the transformation station of this case does not constitute “factory buildings” under Article 75(4) and Article 55 [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and thus, the tax rate under Article 146(2)1 of the Local Tax Act should be applied.

In full view of the facts and legislative intent of the judgment of the first instance cited by this court, it is reasonable to impose property tax and local education tax on which the tax rate of 5/1,00 is applied to the transformation station in the instant case and local education tax accordingly, and impose local resource and facility tax in 2016 applying the heavy taxation rate under Article 146(2)2 of the Local Tax Act, by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) as seen in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, comprehensively taking into account the content of the relevant statutes and the legislative intent of the relevant statutes.

The plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff also asserts that the instant disposition violates non-taxable practices and the principle of protection of trust, and thus, is unlawful. However, as stated in the first instance judgment cited by the court of first instance, it is difficult to deem the instant disposition to violate non-taxable practices or the principle of protection of trust only

The plaintiff.