1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the first instance judgment No. 9 of the first instance judgment, the following is added to the following. (1) The notice of pre-announcement of taxation (No. 1 and No. 3) clearly states the purport of adding the acquisition tax of the standard tax rates reported and paid by the Plaintiff and the designated person to "additional collection" according to the standard rate of heavy taxation, and the following details are added to the first instance judgment No. 12 and the second instance judgment No. 6 of the first instance judgment. (2) A-1 building is used as a villa in accordance with its de facto condition to fall under a villa under the Local Tax Act, and is not owned by any other house than the building.

In addition, it is not appropriate for the Plaintiff to use the instant house for the purpose of relaxation, summering, or amusement in the location and facility of the building as the owner’s supervision does not have any influence on whether it falls under a villa under the Local Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8280, 8297, Nov. 11, 1994). Thus, even if the Plaintiff and the Selection acquired the instant house for the purpose of villa, and continuously promoted the sale thereof under the circumstances which make it difficult for the Plaintiff to use it as a villa, it can be deemed that it falls under a villa under the Local Tax Act, as long as the objective situation of the use was fit for the purpose of villa as seen above.

The following is added to the last 12th sentence of the first instance judgment, i.e., the “legal” of the 12th sentence, i.e., the 12th sentence, i., the 12th sentence, i.e., the 12th sentence, and the Plaintiff could not be known as the Plaintiff and the designated person, since the use of the instant house was at any time and at any time.