1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 19, 201, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate A, Dong A, Dong A, 104, and underground105 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The instant real estate was exempted from acquisition tax, local education tax, special rural development tax, and special rural development tax on the ground that “the instant real estate constitutes real estate acquired by a small and medium business proprietor by selling it in lots from the establisher of a knowledge industry center for the purpose of running a business or venture business under Article 28-5 (1) 1 and 2 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act” under Article 4 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014); and Article 7 (2) of the former Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of Do Taxes (Amended by Act No. 4200, Jun. 2, 2011; hereinafter the same).

B. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to B. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed and collected acquisition tax of KRW 21,416,060, local education tax, KRW 1,967,680, and KRW 1,070,780, which was exempted for the Plaintiff on February 9, 2015, pursuant to the proviso to Article 7(2) of the former Ordinance on Tax Reduction and Exemption of Gyeonggi-do, on the grounds that the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate within five years from the date of its acquisition.

C. As the Plaintiff did not pay the above acquisition tax, etc. by the payment date ( February 28, 2015), the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the above acquisition tax, etc. and additional dues thereon, and requested the Plaintiff to pay the said acquisition tax, etc., several times thereafter, since the Plaintiff continued not to pay the above acquisition tax, etc., and again demanded payment. On February 9, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a demand for payment of the said acquisition tax, etc. and additional dues and aggravated additional dues thereon (hereinafter “instant demand for payment”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the real estate of this case was used for the plaintiff's unique business, and thus the grounds for mitigation under Article 22-4 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act