1. Acquisition tax, 22,312,370 won, special rural development tax, 2,231,230 won, and registration tax, 8,924.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2009, the Plaintiff newly built the instant building B and C (hereinafter “instant building”) and subsequently acquired it.

B. On August 19, 2009, the Plaintiff planned to use the instant building as a welfare facility for the aged and applied for reduction of 50% of the acquisition tax and registration tax related to the acquisition of the instant building to the Defendant on August 19, 2009 pursuant to Article 10 subparagraph 2 of the former Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Gyeonggi-do Ordinance No. 3999, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same). Upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s application, the Defendant reduced 50% of the acquisition tax and registration tax.

C. The Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly use the instant building, and, pursuant to the proviso to Article 10 of the former Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of Do Taxes, on July 2, 2014, against the Plaintiff.

As stated in the foregoing paragraph, acquisition tax reduced to 22,312,370 won, special rural development tax to 2,231,230 won, registration tax to 8,924,940 won, local education tax to 1,680,750 won, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 11, 2014.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2; evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5; Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 6; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the building of this case was leased to D, but since D, a corporation established and operated a welfare facility for the aged in the building of this case, so so long as the building of this case is used as a welfare facility for the aged, it cannot be deemed that the proviso of Article 10 of the former Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of Do Taxes does not constitute “cases where the building of this case is not used directly for the welfare facility for the aged” as one of the reasons for collection.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The Plaintiff, on September 4, 2009, establishes and operates a welfare facility for the aged.