1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired a nonprofit medical corporation; (b) on November 2, 2012, 2012, a 2,439 square meters for approximately 2,00 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”); and (c) on the same day, the Plaintiff acquired two detached houses of the Gggle roof (hereinafter “instant building”); and (d) filed an application for exemption from acquisition tax, etc. pursuant to Article 38(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11618, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act”); and (c) the Defendant exempted the application.

B. On February 12, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the instant land was left unattended as a result of the fact-finding survey on real estate subject to reduction and exemption of acquisition tax, and notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the decision of reduction and exemption and the imposition of acquisition tax, etc. on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not directly use each of the instant real estate within one year from the date of acquisition without justifiable grounds, pursuant to Article 178 subparagraph 1

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, but the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do decided not to adopt on May 14, 2014. On June 18, 2014, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of 118,859,860 won, local education tax of 10,93,230 won, and special rural development tax of 11,643,90 won on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 3 (including the number of branch offices), Eul's evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion acquired each of the instant real estate and removed the instant building, and the construction of a site to build a hospital on the instant land was conducted, it cannot be deemed that each of the instant real estate was not used directly for the medical business.

In addition, the Plaintiff is adjacent to the instant land, Pyeongtaek-si B.