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

A. On March 12, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1.7 billion to D and E, and reported and paid capital gains tax of KRW 45,961,320 to the Defendant on June 2, 2014.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff, on the instant real estate, operated the telecom with F (hereinafter in this case’s telecom). On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D for the comprehensive acquisition of facility costs and business costs (hereinafter in this case’s transfer contract) and received KRW 300 million on the same day. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was deemed to fall under other income under Article 21(1)7 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12738, Jun. 3, 2014) and paid KRW 12,00,000,000 for other income tax.

C. The Defendant: (a) conducted a survey of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, and deemed that the instant transfer contract included the transfer of the instant franchise business right in addition to the equipment, and the sales right was transferred along with the instant real estate, which is a fixed asset for business of the instant franchise; and (b) deemed that the remaining KRW 223,047,670, excluding the amount of KRW 76,952,330, which was recognized as the cost of the instant purchase price, was the sales right transferred along with the fixed asset for business, and accordingly, notified the correction and notification of KRW 124,626,630, the capital gains tax for the year 2014

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit upon a request by the Tax Tribunal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds under the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(1) The transfer contract of this case is the subject of the facilities and equipment.