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 August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 193,516,00 of building D (D) Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant officetel”), Songpa-gu, Seoul, the exclusive area of which is 29.96 square meters, from KRW 193,516,00. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an application for the reduction of or exemption from local taxes under Article 31(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) and was exempted from acquisition tax, local education tax, and special rural development tax.

B. On February 20, 2017, the instant officetel transferred its ownership to a third party through a voluntary auction procedure.

C. On May 17, 2017, the Defendant sold the instant officetel within the mandatory rental period (five years) and imposed KRW 10,50,580,580 on the Plaintiff, including acquisition tax, KRW 7740,640, local education tax, KRW 774,060, and KRW 387,030, and additional tax (non-return due to failure) and KRW 1,598,850, and KRW 10,580,000, which were reduced or exempted by the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file a return within 30 days, even if the cause for additional collection,

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition】 The entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 8, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff leased the instant officetel for about three years and six months, but it was no longer possible to lease it any longer as the instant officetel was sold at auction. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable to collect acquisition tax, etc. for the same purpose as the instant officetel was sold at will, and in particular, it goes against the principle of proportionality to collect acquisition tax, etc. for the period of real lease during the five-year lease obligation period. 2) The Plaintiff lost the ownership of the instant officetel due to economic difficulties, and does not intend to avoid taxation, and there is room for dispute as to whether the Plaintiff should pay and pay the total amount of acquisition tax, etc. exempted by the Plaintiff as seen above 1.