1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 9, 1983, the Plaintiff newly constructed the 52.06 square meters and 390.35 square meters of reinforced concrete structure’s saves saves saves saves saves saves saves saves 52.06 square meters on the ground, and operates the current 2nds and 4ths on the ground (hereinafter “instant church”).

B. On May 3, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 97-1 large scale 1,593 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seocho-dong, Seoul Northern District Court, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul District Court No. 14141, May 3, 201.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for non-taxation, such as acquisition tax, on the ground that he acquired the instant land as “land for construction before school,” with the Defendant, and was exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax, etc. on the instant land pursuant to Articles 107 and 127 of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 30, 201; hereinafter the same) by the Defendant.

The defendant from March 29, 2013

5. By the 31.31., the current status of the use of the instant land was examined.

The Defendant imposed KRW 160,773,180, including acquisition tax, which was exempted from the Plaintiff on August 13, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff had not used directly for the intended business without justifiable grounds within three years from the date of acquisition of the instant land (i.e., acquisition tax of KRW 121,573,150, additional tax of KRW 26,794,720, special rural development tax of KRW 12,405,310), and registration tax of KRW 173,178,510 (=registration tax of KRW 121,573,794,720, KRW 24,810,640).

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") . [Grounds for recognition] . Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, 7, and 8 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff asserted that the parking space of the church of this case is narrow, used the land of this case in the vicinity as a church parking lot, and opened the church free of charge to allow neighboring residents to use it as a parking lot.