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 grounds for this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a partial revision as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third 4-5 of the acquisition tax “370,260,240 won” was added to “(52,341,000 won for additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on additional tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on negligent tax on 52,341,000 won)”, and “31,791,920 won for special tax on rural and fishing villages” thereafter.

Each "disposition of this case" in the 3rd, 5, 7, and 8 shall be punished by "each Disposition of this case dated March 3, 2015".

Part 3. The following shall be added to the 11st page:

A person shall be appointed.

G. After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on March 3, 2015, seeking revocation of the remainder of the tax imposition disposition, excluding the amount for correction of the above amount of reduction (additional tax on negligent tax returns). However, the Plaintiff also withdrawn the part that seeks revocation of the principal tax of acquisition tax, and the amount that seeks revocation of the principal tax of special tax for rural development, 26,170,500, from the first instance of the imposition disposition.

Therefore, among the dispositions of March 3, 2015, the imposition of additional tax for arrears remaining after the reduction, correction, and withdrawal as above shall be subject to the adjudication of this case.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not pay acquisition tax and special rural development tax on each land of this case is due to the existence of a disagreement in the interpretation of the tax law regarding whether the Plaintiff or the truster, who is the trustee under the Trust Act, can be reduced or exempted acquisition tax in accordance with the special provisions of this case. The Defendant also recognized D’s acquisition tax reduction in accordance with the special provisions of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff did not pay the above acquisition tax and special tax for rural development.