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 sold 1,650,000 square meters in total, and 1486.6 square meters in total (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of 1537.6/2032.2 square meters of land for factory in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 2032.2 square meters of land for factory in the 1,650,000 square meters of land for two-story factories (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff paid the price in full on November 14, 2016, and reported and paid acquisition tax for 1,585,957,559 won on the same day on the same day on the premise that the acquisition by succession is based on acquisition by succession.

B. On August 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction stating that acquisition tax rate under Article 11(1)3 of the Local Tax Act shall apply to the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant real estate through an auction procedure constitutes original acquisition, and thus, the acquisition tax already reported and paid KRW 19,031,490, and local education tax amounting to KRW 3,806,30, and KRW 22,837,790 (hereinafter “instant claim for correction”).

C. On September 17, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that acquiring the instant real estate through the auction procedure constitutes acquisition by succession.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion by auction is the original acquisition by law, as well as the acquisition by a ruling of acceptance. The Tax Tribunal has decided that the acquisition by auction should be deemed the original acquisition in case where the previous limitation of rights and defects are not succeeded to.

In addition, the Local Tax Act was amended by Act No. 14475 on December 27, 2016, and the provision that "if a person acquires a taxable subject to taxation, such as the case of acquisition by a ruling of expropriation, he/she shall be excluded from the original acquisition" was inserted, and on the contrary, it was interpreted that the case of acquisition before the amendment, such as the Plaintiff, had already been subject to taxation.