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 a company that owns a land and a building on its ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as “contestable real estate”), including 73-1 square meters and 1,878.4 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and operates the hotel skin in the key real estate.

B. Pursuant to Article 54(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11138, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 15 of the former Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of Gu Tax (amended by Ordinance No. 1097, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff applied for reduction and exemption of property tax on the pertinent real estate from 2008 to 2014, and applied for reduction and exemption of property tax for the reduction and exemption of property tax on the said real estate.

C. Meanwhile, from August 2007 to March 2009, the Plaintiff remodeled the hotel skin, and received the hotel rating from the Korea Tourist Hotel Association on March 24, 2009 as a special class 1 to class 2, and adjusted the display price base rate by taking into account the passenger room fee of a nearby special class 2 hotel as of March 1, 2010, and then reduced the rate by 20% and maintained it until 2014.

After the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an audit on Seoul Special Metropolitan City from May 2, 2015 to August 2015, 2015, it notified the audit results as "unfair collection of reduced and exempted property tax for special tourist hotels" on February 2, 2016, and notified the plaintiff and 14 tourist hotels of the method of collecting the reduced and exempted property tax from 2011 to 2014.

E. Accordingly, on May 10, 2016, the Defendant imposed and notified KRW 45,917,750 on the real estate at issue, which had been reduced or exempted for the Plaintiff on May 10, 201, on the ground that the reduction rate of the guest room fee for hotel skins falls short of the property tax reduction rate, on which the Defendant imposed and notified the total property tax for the year 201 (the total property tax for the real estate at issue, which was reduced or exempted for the Plaintiff (38,61,530 won on the land at the

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, A.