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 is an agricultural company established for landscaping and landscaping planting business.

B. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired a stable of 1,769 square meters in Sejong Special Self-Governing City B and of 523.25 square meters in its ground and a compost of 72 square meters in its ground (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). Pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) at the time, an agricultural company acquired the relevant real estate within two years from the date of registration of incorporation to use for farming, as real estate acquired by the agricultural company within two years from the date of registration of incorporation.

C. On March 23, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that each of the above buildings is not used in farming through the business trip of public officials belonging to the Defendant, and on August 11, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a disposition imposing acquisition tax amounting to KRW 21,723,490 (including additional tax) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly use each of the above buildings and their appurtenant land for the pertinent purpose without justifiable grounds until one year has elapsed from the date of acquisition of each of the instant real estate, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly use each of the above buildings and their appurtenant land for the pertinent purpose (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the disposition of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff did not use the pertinent real estate for the pertinent purpose is illegal due to erroneous determination of facts, since it planted multiple types of landscape trees on the land among each real estate of this case, and used each building as a temporary storage place for seedlings, composts, agricultural machinery, etc.

B. Prior to the determination, the circumstances leading up to the instant disposition and the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 7, 9, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, and 9, and all pleadings can be recognized.