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 reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as to this case as follows 2. Thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including “related Acts and subordinate statutes,” but excluding the part “4. conclusion”). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The revised portion of the 3th 8th h eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

4 The 8 to 5th 6th tier below shall be as follows:

【A) Article 97(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26763, Dec. 28, 2015) provides that “A resident prescribed by Presidential Decree in the main sentence of Article 97(1) of the Act means a resident who leases at least five units of rental housing.” Thus, only E housing 1 does not constitute “resident prescribed by Presidential Decree” under the main sentence of Article 97(1) of the Act.

In addition, according to Article 97(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the term “the commencement of lease before December 31, 200” should be “the commencement of lease”. Since the Plaintiff acquired E house on November 22, 2006 and registered as a rental business operator on October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff failed to meet the above requirements.

Therefore, the E-house can not be seen as a “rental house” under the main sentence of Article 97(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act without examining whether it falls under other requirements.

B. In addition, among purchased rental housing under the proviso of Article 97 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff constitutes only a house that has not been occupied at the time of acquisition of rental housing leased for not less than five years after acquisition and commencement of lease after January 1, 1995.

“....”