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

A. On December 27, 1983, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building on the land in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant previous house”) on the ground, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, but newly constructed a multi-household house (hereinafter “instant newly-built house”) after the instant previous house was redeveloped, and obtained approval for use on April 17, 2002, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on May 15, 2002.

B. On April 21, 2006, when transferring the newly-built house of this case on the ground that it was transferred within five years from the date of acquiring the newly-built house of this case, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax for 2006 on the ground that it was transferred within five years from the date of acquiring the newly-built house of this case (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) as the whole tax amount abated or exempted pursuant to Article 9

C. However, on April 19, 2012, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 34,894,670 to the Plaintiff on April 19, 2012, deeming that only the transfer income amount for the holding period of the newly-built house of this case was subject to reduction

(hereinafter “instant imposition disposition of capital gains tax”). D.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on November 7, 2012, but the said appeal was dismissed on January 31, 2013.

E. In the event that the transferor is within five years from the date of acquisition of a newly-built house under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the entire transfer income tax following the transfer of the newly-built house is to be reduced or exempted because it is not necessary to distinguish transfer income from the date of acquisition of the existing house from the date of acquisition of the newly-built house from the date of transfer of the newly-built house from the date of acquisition of the newly-built house until the date of transfer of the newly-built house (hereinafter “instant Supreme Court decision”) under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the ground that the Defendant erred by interpreting the former part of Article 99-3(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act at the time of the disposition of imposition of transfer income tax in this case and applying it by wrong interpretation and application