1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired shares 48,224/104,628 (hereinafter “instant shares”) among B forest land No. 104,628 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) in the course of compulsory auction at Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

On March 8, 2013, the Plaintiff reported acquisition tax on the instant shares on March 8, 2013, and applied for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax as forest land for creating farmland acquired by a self-employed farmer to the effect that “a person plans to grow trees after drilling or lose trees,” and was reduced by 50/10 of acquisition tax pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.

On June 2015, the head of the branch office of Yyang-si in Namyang-si confirmed that the forest of this case was natural forest conditions through a business trip investigation. On October 7, 2015, the Plaintiff imposed acquisition tax9,964,940, local education tax838,090, special rural development tax, special rural development tax, and 838,090 won on the Plaintiff, deeming that the forest of this case was subject to acquisition tax due to the Plaintiff’s failure to commence farmland creation without justifiable grounds until two years have elapsed from the date of acquisition of the instant shares.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Following the amendment of the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs in Namyang-si, which was made on January 25, 2017, the branch office of Yangyang-si was closed on February 6, 2017, and the administrative disposition taken by the head of the office of branch office in Namyang-si prior to the enforcement of the above amendment Ordinance was considered as the administrative disposition of the Defendant.

[Attachment Article 3 of the former Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs (amended by Ordinance No. 1431, May 11, 2017). 【Unfounded ground for recognition’s absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and Eul’s overall purport of pleading, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, after acquiring about 46% co-ownership shares in the forest of this case as farmland, the Plaintiff intended to consult with co-owners in order to create the forest of this case as farmland. However, 23 co-owners did not properly contact with the forest of this case, and filed a lawsuit seeking partition of co-owned property, but it was impossible to correct the other party’s address.