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 November 24, 2011, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of taking over and transferring securitized assets pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (hereinafter “Asset-Backed Securitization Act”) and the management, operation, and disposal of securitized assets through an asset management company, etc., and acquired securitization assets, such as loans secured by the asset holder under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, from the asset holder under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the same Act on December 16, 201, 730 square meters of land and 8,850 square meters of land and 2,535 square meters of land and 2,535 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. In order to recover the above loan claims, the Plaintiff directly participated in the auction procedure for the instant real estate, and received the decision to permit the sale of the instant real estate as the purchaser on May 21, 2012, and paid the sale price in full on June 25, 2012.

C. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax, local education tax, and special tax for rural development, calculated by reducing or exempting 50/10 of the tax amount pursuant to Articles 119(1)13 and 120(1)12 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”) with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant.

On February 6, 2014, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of 24,006,00 won, local education tax of 2,200,600 won, and special rural development tax of 1,00,300 won, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate does not constitute reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “new Act”).

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Ground for Recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1 and No. 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 119 of the former Act, which applies the reduction and exemption provision of acquisition tax pursuant to the interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1.