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

A. On November 13, 1995, the Plaintiff acquired Nos. 3, 2, 3, 7, 7, and 2 (hereinafter “instant previous house”) of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant previous house”), but the instant previous house was reconstructed, and acquired 103, 608, 103, and 608 (hereinafter “instant newly-built house”) on December 20, 2002.

B. On April 23, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the newly-built house of this case. On the ground that the newly-built house of this case was transferred within five years from the date of its acquisition, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2006 on the ground that it was transferred within five years from the date of its acquisition under Article 99-3(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “Special Provision”).

C. On August 6, 2012, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office: (a) deemed that the transfer income accrued from the acquisition date of the previous house in this case until the date prior to the acquisition date of the newly-built house in this case is not the amount deducted from the income amount subject to capital gains tax; and (b) rendered a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 40,968,540 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

After paying the capital gains tax in accordance with the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed an objection on November 2, 2012 against the instant disposition; however, on December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff received a decision of dismissal from the Seoul Regional Tax Office; and thereafter, filed a request for a tax trial on March 4, 2013, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on May 15, 2013.

In accordance with the fact that the plaintiff did not institute an administrative litigation against the decision to dismiss the above appeal, the above decision became final and conclusive.

E. In a related lawsuit at issue regarding the interpretation of the Special Provision (Supreme Court Decision 2013Du12690), the Supreme Court, on December 11, 2014, held that “in the case of “transfer within five years from the date of acquisition of a newly-built house”, which is subject to reduction or exemption from the former part of the Special Provision, the acquisition date of an existing house shall be from the date of acquisition