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

From February 9, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired from the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Superior (hereinafter referred to as the “C Superior”) Nos. 103, 104, and 105 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant No. 1”), and from the same day D (hereinafter referred to as “transferor”) Nos. 106, 107, 108, and 109 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant No. 2”) each of the instant Building No. 1 and 2, and transferred Nos. 3103, 105, 106, 108, 107, and 109 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Building”) to E on June 12, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred No. 3103, 105, 306, 108, 106, 108, 103, 108, 106, 108, 310, and 10

The Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on August 31, 2008 on the transfer income tax of 2008 with the acquisition value of the building No. 1 of this case KRW 700 million and the acquisition value of the building No. 2 of this case KRW 800 million to the Defendant on August 31, 2008. However, the transferor of the building No. 1 of this case reported the transfer value of the building No. 2 of this case KRW 244,520,00 and D, the transferor of the building No. 2 of this case, respectively. 2 of this case, respectively.

From October 5, 2009 to November 14, 2009, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation of capital gains tax, and decided that the Plaintiff’s report of acquisition value of the instant building is justifiable. On September 28, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the tax investigation, and notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data that the transfer value reported by the transferor is different from the actual transaction value. On September 29, 2010, the head of Gangwon-do Tax Office and the head of Gangnam Tax Office notified the transferor of the rectification of capital gains tax.

The transferor raised an objection against the notification of correction as above by the Commissioner of the Gangwon-do Tax Office and the Director of the Seoul District Tax Office, and the Director of the Gangwon-do Tax Office and the Director of the Gangnam-gu Tax Office re-audit the actual transaction price of the building of this case around September 201 and reported by the plaintiff and the transferor.