1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting to rectify the acquisition tax of KRW 7,840,00 and the local education tax of KRW 784,00,00, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on May 20, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 23, 2013, the Plaintiff was a real estate investment company established pursuant to the Real Estate Investment Company Act for the purpose of acquiring, managing, disposing of, or leasing real estate. On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased from A the B No. 206, Dong 1903 (hereinafter “instant housing”) for KRW 280,000,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 22, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant housing at the same time and leased each of the instant housing to A, a seller for five years.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). However, on July 1, 2014, A applied for the termination of the lease agreement to the Plaintiff on the ground that payment of rent was impossible, and the Plaintiff accepted this and the said lease was terminated.

C. The Plaintiff purchased the instant housing, and was exempt from acquisition tax and local education tax pursuant to Article 34(4) and (5) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act. The Defendant, upon termination of the instant lease agreement, demanded the Plaintiff to pay acquisition tax and local education tax exempted on the ground that the grounds for additional collection under the proviso to Article 34(4) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act arose due to the termination of the lease agreement for at least five years. The Plaintiff filed a return on and paid acquisition tax and local education tax exempted from the Plaintiff on September 19, 2014, respectively.

The Plaintiff filed an application for rectification to the Defendant for the reduction of the total amount of tax payable on the ground that the termination before the expiration of the lease term due to impossibility of paying the rent for A, a lessee, does not constitute grounds for additional collection under the proviso to Article 34(4) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act due to justifiable grounds. However, on May 20, 2015, the Defendant rejected the application for correction on May 20, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for Recognition] is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and arguments.