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

A. The Plaintiff, a special purpose company established pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on Sept. 15, 2010, acquired securitization assets in KRW 26.6 billion, including loan claims secured by the Plaintiff’s loan agreement from the Plaintiff on Oct. 14, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired at KRW 26.6 billion, including the loan claims secured by the Plaintiff’s address omitted ○○○ 134 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. In order to recover the above loan claims, the Plaintiff directly participated in the auction procedure of the instant real estate and won the instant real estate at a successful bid on or around October 4, 201, and paid in full the sales price on October 4, 201.

C. On October 13, 201, the Plaintiff reported acquisition tax of KRW 8,400,000, local education tax of KRW 840,000, local education tax of KRW 840,000, and special rural development tax of KRW 420,00,00, calculated by reducing and exempting the tax amount of KRW 50/10 with respect to the instant real estate as the tax base, and paid the acquisition tax and local education tax.

D. On July 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the acquisition of the instant real estate was not subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax under Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; (b) was amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; (c) and (d) was not subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax under Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Dec. 1, 2013; hereinafter “new Act”); and (d) deemed that acquisition tax was not subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax under Article 120(1)9 of the former Act (including additional tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Claim for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax pursuant to the interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the new Act

Article 120(1)9 of the New Act does not include cases where an asset holder directly succeeds to or acquires real estate from an asset holder or a special purpose company, but also cases where an asset is acquired by auction to collect claims by acquiring real estate from the asset holder as collateral (hereinafter “auction acquisition”). The following reasons are as follows: ① The asset-backed securitization plan includes matters concerning the management, operation, and disposal of securitization assets as in the case of an auction acquisition; thus, the phrase “the asset-backed securitization plan registered pursuant to Article 3 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act” under the aforementioned new Act should be deemed to include cases of auction acquisition. Unless so, the phrase “real estate acquired from an asset holder or another special purpose company” under the aforementioned new Act refers to real estate acquired from the asset holder, and the phrase “real estate acquired from the asset holder or another special purpose company” does not mean that the former owner of real estate must always be the asset holder. ③ In light of the fact that an asset-backed securitization plan includes 31% reduction or exemption of acquisition tax or 15% exemption in the process of the new Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on such other interpretation is unlawful.

2) Claim that violates the principle of trust protection.

① Allied Asset Management Co., Ltd received reply from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Treasury Tax Department to the effect that acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50% when managing, operating, and disposing of the securitization assets acquired from a special purpose company, even if the new law is applied, and ② that acquisition tax has been reduced by a tax authority when a number of special purpose companies acquire by auction, and ③ the government expressed its public opinion that acquisition tax reduction is reduced by new law, such as not notifying a special purpose company of completely reduced benefits from acquisition tax reduction in its legislative process under Article 120(1)9 of the New Act. The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in trust of such public opinion and thus, the instant disposition contrary to such trust is unlawful.

3) Claim for non-taxable practices

Since January 1, 201, when the tax authority enforced Article 120(1)9 of the new Act, 50% of the acquisition tax has been reduced or exempted for real estate acquired by a special purpose company from December 31, 2012. Thus, the non-taxation practice under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes was established.

4) Application of acquisition tax reduction provisions under Article 52 of the Addenda to the new law

Since the Plaintiff assessed the securitization assets of this case under the premise that acquisition tax is exempted pursuant to the former Act and decided on the conditions of securitization securities, such trust of the Plaintiff should be protected. The acquisition tax on the real estate of this case should be reduced or exempted by the former Act pursuant to Article 52 of the Addenda to the new Act. Therefore, the disposition of this case applying the new Act is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the new Act

Article 120 (1) 9 of the New Act provides that acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50/100 for the registration of transfer of ownership of real estate acquired by a special purpose company until December 31, 2012 in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan; however, Article 120 (1) 9 of the previous Act provides that acquisition tax shall not be reduced by 50/10 for the following reasons: (i) Articles 120 (1) 12 and 119 (1) 13 of the previous Act provide that acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50/10 for the registration of transfer of ownership of real estate acquired by the special purpose company until December 31, 2012; (ii) Article 120 (1) 9 of the previous Act provides that an asset holder under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the same Act or the other special purpose company shall not be deemed to have been subject to reduction by 50/10 for the real estate acquired by the new asset-backed securitization plan, regardless of the existence of the new asset-backed securitization plan.

2) Whether the principles of trust protection are violated

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the tax authority's acts in tax and law relations, the tax authority should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to taxpayers, ② the tax authority's reliance on the reliance on the reliance of the tax authority's reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on taxpayers. ③ The reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on

In full view of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 6 and 15-1, 2, and 3’s arguments, where the Plaintiff’s major shareholder and the business trustee of the management company concurrently received notification from other institutions that “it shall not be subject to reduction or exemption because there is no matter specified in the new law in the case of managing, operating, or disposing of securitization assets,” and on April 29, 201, the Financial Bureau and the Incheon Metropolitan Government issued an inquiry as to whether acquisition tax may be reduced or exempted if the Plaintiff acquired the relevant real estate by bidding in the capacity of creditors in the course of managing, operating, or disposing of mortgage rights based on the claims acquired from the asset holder under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act after the enforcement of the new Act.” Article 120(1)9(1)2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “No. 100% of acquisition tax shall be imposed on the real estate acquired by the special purpose company subject to reduction or exemption from the list No. 201, May 4, 2011.”

However, the above questioning is made to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Treasury Tax Department, which is not the plaintiff, but to the non-party Joint Asset Management Corporation, which is not the plaintiff, with the authority to dispose of this case, and it is merely a general interpretation of the relevant laws in light of the above response and form. Since the amendment of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not directly acquire real estate from the originator or other special purpose companies, the management, operation, and disposal of the securitization assets would not be subject to acquisition tax exemption. After receiving notification from other agencies, it is again made to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Treasury Tax Department. The purport of the reply is not to reduce acquisition tax by 50% regardless of whether the seller is the originator, etc., and rather, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Treasury Tax Department mentions the provisions of Article 120 (1) 9 of the New Act and states that acquisition tax exemption is reduced by 50% on the "real estate acquired from the originator, etc.," each of the above notification of acquisition tax exemption was made between the special purpose company and its tax authority, since the plaintiff acquired the real estate in this case, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's opinion that it was not clearly known in the new legislation.

3) Whether non-taxable practices are established

In order for a non-taxable practice to be established under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, there must be an objective fact that has not been taxed over a considerable period of time, and a tax authority should not impose tax due to any special circumstance despite its knowledge that it is able to impose tax on the matter. Such public opinion or intent must be expressed explicitly or implicitly, but in order to establish an implied expression of taxation, there must be circumstances to deem that the tax authority expressed its intent not to impose tax on the state of non-taxation for a considerable period of time, unlike mere omission of taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du4849, Nov. 8, 2002).

On October 13, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax, etc. calculated by reducing or exempting 50/100 of the tax amount on the instant real estate to the Defendant on or before October 13, 201, and the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing acquisition tax, etc. on July 17, 2013, not subject to acquisition tax reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the New Act, as seen earlier. However, solely on such circumstance alone, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not impose tax over a considerable period of time, or that the Defendant expressed his/her intent not to impose tax on the instant real estate under any special circumstance with knowledge that the instant real estate is not subject to reduction or exemption. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4) Whether Article 52 of the Addenda to the new Act applies to the reduction or exemption provision of acquisition tax under the old Act

A) Article 52 of the Addenda to the new Act provides, “The previous provisions shall apply to the local taxes imposed, reduced, or exempted under the previous provisions at the time this Act enters into force.” The following is examined whether Article 120(1)12 and Article 119(1)13 of the former Act applies to the acquisition of the real estate of this case in accordance with the aforementioned Addenda provisions.

B) In a case where there is an amendment of the tax law, the application of the tax law at the time when the tax liability becomes effective, among the laws before and after the amendment, shall be natural in light of the principle of no payment in law. However, in a case where the tax law is revised disadvantageous to the taxpayer and thus requires the taxpayer to apply the former law favorable to the taxpayer in order to protect the taxpayer’s right to obtain profit or trust, the above transitional provision is a special provision that exceptionally applies the former law without asking the taxpayer the time when the tax liability comes into existence and without asking the taxpayer the time when the tax liability comes into existence in order to protect the taxpayer’s right to obtain profit or trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu566, May 24, 1994).

However, in order to apply the previous provisions under the transitional provisions as above, the taxpayer shall trust the tax reduction and exemption, etc. under the previous provisions and form a certain legal status or living relationship as well as the State, at the time of the enforcement thereof, to the extent that it should be protected by the State. In such a case, even if the taxpayer trusted the tax reduction and exemption, etc. under the previous provisions, it is merely a mere expectation that the previous provisions are not applied under

C) Examining the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of pleadings in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff acquired loan claims on the instant real estate as collateral and issued asset-backed securities based thereon prior to the enforcement of the new law, such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to the existence of causes closely related to the establishment of tax liability or taxation requirements, which are subject to the application of Article 52 of the Addenda to the new law prior to the enforcement of the new law, i.e., local tax to be reduced or exempted pursuant to the previous law, i.e., local tax to be reduced or exempted pursuant to the previous provisions, and even if the Plaintiff trusted that the provision on reduction or exemption of the previous law should be applied to the acquisition tax if the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate through auction at that time, it cannot be deemed that the acquisition of the instant real estate was merely merely a simple expectation

① The purpose of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to ensure fair taxation and to efficiently implement tax policies by prescribing matters concerning special cases of taxation, such as tax reduction or exemption, excessive taxation, etc. As acquisition tax on the initial special purpose company, etc. was prepared in consideration of policy measures to revitalize corporate restructuring and construction games, the scope of reduction or exemption of acquisition tax, etc. on acquisition of real estate by a special purpose company is granted wide discretion and authority of the competent administrative agency. The reduction of reduction of acquisition tax, etc. subject to reduction in new law leads to public purpose for fair taxation and securing tax revenues.

② A special purpose company may use the method of recovering claims by exercising the security right of real estate collateral through the real estate auction procedure after acquiring the collateral by directly participating in the auction procedure if the minimum sale price lowers the minimum sale price, and then disposing of it at an appropriate price and securing cash flow which was originally anticipated (hereinafter “influence”). However, such method is limited to recovery method used exceptionally according to its own decision in order to reduce losses arising from the decline of the minimum sale price and the delay in the sale, and even if there was no bidder at the time of the securitization plan, it is merely a general and abstract plan, and in this case, it does not necessarily mean that the possibility of inflow is limited to a general and abstract plan, and specifically, in this case, it is expected that the collateral will naturally be flowed as one of the management, operation, and disposal of the securitization assets, or that it is obligated to bring the collateral into the real estate under certain requirements

③ In the auction procedure for the instant real estate, the Plaintiff filed an application for the purchase of the instant real estate as a direct cause for the acquisition of the instant real estate. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the said application for the purchase was made before the new law enters into force, and rather, the Plaintiff appears to have filed an application for the purchase under the circumstance that the Plaintiff knew or could have known that it would not

④ Prior to the enforcement of the new Act, it appears that the acquisition price and issuance of asset-backed securities that the Plaintiff would pay in the course of taking over the securitization assets from the originator would be determined on the basis of the appraised value of the relevant securitization assets. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the investors have formed a certain legal status or social or economic relationship, even a specific act corresponding to the requirements for reduction or exemption by reliance on the provisions of reduction or exemption of the previous Act before the enforcement of the new Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Related Acts and subordinate statutes omitted]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice) and the head of Kim Jong-dong