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

This court's reasoning is as follows, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the plaintiff's argument that is especially emphasized or newly raised in this court, and thus, this court's reasoning is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff is particularly emphasizing in the trial and the judgment thereof

A. Summary of the argument

1) Note 1) The assertion that acquisition tax should be reduced or exempted even if based on new law

Article 120 (1) 9 of the New Act provides that acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50% for the acquisition of real estate acquired by a special purpose company from an asset holder defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act or from another special purpose company on or before December 31, 2012 in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan registered pursuant to Article 3 of the same Act. "Acquisition" referred to in the above provision means not only where a special purpose company directly succeeds to an asset holder or from another special purpose company (hereinafter "asset holder, etc.") but also where a special purpose company acquires the securitization assets acquired from an asset holder, etc. in the course of managing, operating, and disposing of the asset acquired from the asset holder, etc. in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan." Further, "the process of managing, operating, and disposing of the asset acquired from the asset holder, etc. in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan" includes cases where a special purpose company acquires collateral claims from the asset holder, etc. by participating in an auction for the purpose of collecting claims from the asset holder, etc. Accordingly, the new Act on acquisition tax reduction and exemption and exemption under subparagraph 34 of new Act.

2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a cause of action based on the right to obtain acquisition tax reduction or trust under the former Act

The Plaintiff’s asset-backed securitization plan is scheduled as one of the representative methods of collecting claims to the Plaintiff’s participation in the auction of secured real estate and acquire the bid thereof. The Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s investor trusted that acquisition tax will be reduced or exempted as a matter of course by applying the former Act, and on this premise, determined the purchase price of non-performing loans. In light of such asset-backed securitization process, it is clear that the Plaintiff’s purchase of non-performing loans constitutes the act of causing acquisition of real estate in this case. Therefore, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff had an act of causing the Plaintiff’s acquisition of real estate due to the right to obtain acquisition tax reduction or trust under the former Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’

3) The instant disposition is alleged to infringe on the Plaintiff’s trust in relation to the Plaintiff’s inquiry and reply, etc.

On May 2, 201, after the enforcement of the new Act, the Yonhap Asset Management Co., Ltd. established the Plaintiff received an answer from the Treasury of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Tax Service and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Treasury to the effect that “where the Yonhap Asset Management Co., Ltd. acquired the relevant real estate by failing to comply with an auction in the capacity of creditors in the course of managing and operating collateral based on the claims acquired from the originator, etc. after the enforcement of the new Act, it constitutes an object of reduction or exemption of acquisition tax” around May 4, 201, and that “a special purpose company constitutes real estate acquired from the originator, etc. in accordance with the asset-backed securitization plan and constitutes an object of reduction or exemption of acquisition tax,” other than the Plaintiff, it has been subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax after the enforcement of the new Act. In this process, since the Plaintiff et al.

4) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the imposition of penalty tax is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s failure to pay tax has justifiable grounds.

In light of the fact that there was no procedure for gathering opinions on the relevant provisions prior to the enforcement of the new law, and there was no opportunity for interested parties, such as the Plaintiff, etc. to grasp the revised contents in advance or to present their opinions, and that the acquisition through the auction procedure, such as the instant case, would have been sent differently from the previous one, which would have not been reduced or exempted from acquisition tax, from March 15, 2012, it should be deemed that there exists a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to not pay the acquisition tax on the instant real estate at the time of initial return and payment

5) The assertion of procedural illegality

The notice of tax payment on the instant disposition (No. 1; hereinafter referred to as the “instant notice”) does not separately state the penalty tax, but only states the total amount included in the principal tax. Since the respective amount of the principal tax and additional tax and the calculation basis thereof, and the type of additional tax are not clearly stated, the instant disposition is erroneous in violation of the due process principle.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion that acquisition tax should be reduced or exempted even if it is based on the new law

A) In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, the interpretation of tax laws is to be interpreted as the text of the law, barring any special circumstances, and it is not allowed to expand or analogically interpret the tax laws with favorable interests to taxpayers without reasonable grounds. In particular, it is also consistent with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that may be clearly viewed as preferential in terms of the requirements for tax exemption or reduction (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009, etc.).

B) Comprehensively taking into account the language and text of the new provision and legislative purpose thereof, ① Article 120(1)12 of the former Act and Article 119(1)13 of the same Act provide that a special purpose company shall have 50/100 of acquisition tax on the registration, etc. of ownership transfer or auction application for real estate acquired by transfer or transfer from an asset holder or another special purpose company by December 31, 2012. However, Article 120(1)9 of the former Act provides that acquisition tax shall not be reduced or exempted for the following reasons: (a) the new provision on the asset-backed securitization plan stating that the new provision on the asset-backed securitization plan, which provides for the acquisition of real estate, shall not be applied to the asset holder under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act or from other special purpose companies; and (b) the new provision on the asset-backed securitization plan, which provides that the new provision on acquisition tax shall not be applied to the asset-backed securitization company’s acquisition of real estate, as stated in the former Act.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a cause based on the right to obtain acquisition tax reduction or trust under the former Act

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, cited by this judgment, comprehensively takes into account the following circumstances, namely, ① a special purpose company, including the plaintiff, collects claims using various methods, so it is difficult to deem that the purchase price of non-performing loans was premised on the recovery of claims by means of acquiring secured real estate through an auction procedure. ② Article 1 of the Addenda to the new Act provides that “This Act shall enter into force on January 1, 201,” and Article 2(6) of the former Act explicitly provides that “The amended provisions on acquisition tax and registration license tax of this Act shall apply from the first acquisition or registration after this Act enters into force, and the acquisition of real estate in an auction procedure shall be deemed to have been carried out at the time of full payment of the purchase price, but it is difficult to view that the new Act applies to the acquisition of real estate of this case, which was already carried out by the Financial Services Commission on October 4, 201, because the purchase price of the real estate of this case, which was paid by the plaintiff, or the plaintiff, would have to be subject to the new Act or new Act on Real Estate Management.”

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Determination as to the assertion that the instant disposition infringes on the Plaintiff’s trust related to the inquiry and reply, etc.

In full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited in this judgment, i.e., ① the tax authority of the Seoul Metropolitan Government is not the tax authority, and thus cannot be deemed as a public opinion, and the Plaintiff was not a party to the above inquiry. ② Even if a special purpose company, such as the Plaintiff, acquired other real estate than the instant real estate in the auction procedure after the enforcement of the new law, and was exempted from acquisition tax, it cannot be deemed as a public opinion of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant did not have expressed a public opinion, or that there was a disposition contrary to this, even though there was no other opinion that the Defendant would have expressed a view that he would have trusted the Plaintiff to have acquired the instant real estate without any reason attributable to the Defendant’s statement, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate without any reason. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

4) Determination as to the assertion that there are justifiable grounds for non-performance of initial tax liability

However, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, tax penalties under tax laws are administrative sanctions imposed, as prescribed by the Act, if a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered, and statutory sites and mistakes do not constitute justifiable grounds that do not constitute breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4689, Nov. 13, 2002). The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments adopted on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance as cited in the judgment, are as follows: (i) the new law was announced prior to its enforcement; (ii) the process of collecting citizens’ opinions and opinions; and (iii) the tax authorities also believe that there was confusion in the interpretation of the new law after the amendment of the new law, and thus, it is difficult to deem the taxpayer to have justifiable grounds solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay taxes in principle due to the fact that the Plaintiff did not have any legitimate grounds for the Plaintiff’s tax return or tax payment.

5) The assertion of procedural illegality

A) According to Article 2(1)15 and Article 55(1) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes and Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, a tax payment notice of local taxes provides that the taxable year and items of taxation to be paid, laws and ordinances of the relevant local government, address, tax base, tax rate, amount of tax, payment time limit, place of payment, measures taken when taxes are not paid by the payment time limit, relief methods when taxes are illegal or erroneous. The above provisions on a tax payment notice of the Framework Act on Local Taxes accept the principles of due process under the Constitution and the basic principles of the Administrative Procedures Act as they are in the area of taxation disposition, with a careful and reasonable taxation disposition excluding a taxpayer, thereby ensuring the fairness of tax administration and allowing the taxpayer to raise convenience in appeal by informing the taxpayers of the details of the taxation disposition in detail. Furthermore, it is evident that the tax base and amount of tax to be imposed can be comprehensively stated in the aforementioned notice of tax base and calculation method as well as 10th of the tax base and calculation basis of the tax base, and 20th of taxation.

B) As to the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and argument as to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant sent a written advance notice of tax reduction and exemption for acquisition tax on July 17, 2013, stating only the total amount of acquisition tax, local education tax, and special rural development tax on the instant real estate in the notice, but not stating the type and amount of each principal tax and additional tax separately. However, in full view of the purport of each statement and argument as to Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the defendant, prior to the delivery of the notice to the plaintiff on July 9, 2013, indicated the tax base of acquisition tax, local education tax, special rural development tax, as well as the additional tax rate for additional tax and additional tax, and sent the Plaintiff a written advance notice of tax reduction and exemption for acquisition tax, which is separately indicated with the principal tax amount. Accordingly, in light of the fact that the defendant notified the specific tax base and tax rate of each principal tax before the instant disposition, as alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be viewed that there were no grounds for the Plaintiff’s specific determination of the principal tax and additional tax amount as unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges’ aid (Presiding Judge) Transfering of permanent equipment

Note 1) The meaning of the abbreviationd language used below is the same as that of the first instance judgment.

2) It is difficult to deem that there was a practice of reducing or exempting acquisition tax on real estate acquired by a special purpose company through an auction procedure after the enforcement of the new Act.