1. On May 10, 2016, the Defendant stated the “amount of tax notified” in each of the “amount of tax notified” as stated in attached Table 1 to the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a company that owns each land and building (hereinafter referred to as “influence real estate”) indicated in the item of imposition disposition, including property tax, in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City-ro 287 [Attachment 1], and operates the “Welland Endorsement Seoul” (hereinafter referred to as the “Gu Solur Rour Seoul”; hereinafter referred to as the “instant hotel”).

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), Article 54(2) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, and Article 15 or 9 of the former Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of Gu Taxes (amended by Ordinance No. 1112, May 7, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) (amended by Ordinance No. 1256, Apr. 29, 2015); the Plaintiff applied for reduction and exemption of property tax on the real estate at issue to the Defendant from 208 to 2014.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff, a special class 2 hotel, reduced the passenger room fee by at least 20% from January 1, 2007 as of December 1, 2007, and remodeled the instant hotel on March 20, 2008, and continued to increase the passenger room fee from May 2008 to 2014.

The Board of Audit and Inspection, from May 2015 to August 2015, 2015, conducted an audit on Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Metropolitan City") and notified the result of the audit to "unfairly collecting the reduced or exempted amount of property tax on a special-level tourism hotel" on February 2016, and notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the method of collecting the reduced or exempted amount of property tax from 2011 to 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant shall be exempted from property tax on the hotel of this case.

Of the cases, the requirement of “the reduction rate of at least 20% compared to the guest room fee on January 1, 2007” shall be deemed not satisfied, and the Plaintiff on May 10, 2016 shall be deemed attached Table 1.