2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 3, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired an OO-dong 000 to 433.8 and its ground buildings 1,005.05 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”). Around May 4, 2005, the Plaintiff decided to sell the instant real estate to the Nonparty Co., Ltd. BBBBBB (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”), and on December 20, 2006, transferred the instant real estate by receiving the remainder payment from the non-party company in full.

B. On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid 388,302,584 won (1,230,964,765 won) as capital gains tax calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price of the real estate in this case as the real estate in this case falls under an speculative area, while on May 30, 207, the Plaintiff reported and paid to the Defendant on May 30, 2007, the real estate in this case was amended and deleted by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 206 (hereinafter referred to as the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act") under Article 85 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Taxation Regulation") to the effect that when the amount of capital gains tax is calculated on the basis of the standard market price pursuant to the above provision, the amount of capital gains tax was changed to the amount of capital gains tax of KRW 203,619,744 (60,906,90284).

C. On July 24, 2007, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the Nonparty Company, the transferee of the instant real estate, was not designated as a public project operator and was not subject to the provisions of the instant special taxation.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

A. The allegations by the parties and issues

The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate before the designation of an urban environment rearrangement zone, which is the time of acquisition prescribed by the special provisions of this case, and transferred it to the transferee, who is the urban environment rearrangement project implementer, on December 7, 2006, within the time of transfer. In calculating capital gains tax from the transfer of the said real estate, the special provisions of this case apply, and thus, the transfer income tax should be calculated based on the standard market price. Accordingly, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction is unlawful. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant special provisions of this case were not applicable because the non-party company, the transferee of the instant real estate, was not the project implementer because the implementation of the urban environment improvement project was not authorized until the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, and thus, the instant special provisions of this case were not applicable. Accordingly, the issue of this case is whether the project implementation authorization was granted after the transfer of the land to the project implementer who performed the project without the authorization for the implementation

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On or around March 3, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate and decided to sell it to the non-party company on or around May 4, 2005, and transferred the said real estate upon receiving the remainder payment on or around December 20, 2006, and upon filing a request for correction on the grounds that the transfer income tax based on the actual transaction price was reported and paid, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction.

2) Seoul Mapo-gu, where the instant real estate belongs, was designated as a housing speculation area as of May 29, 2003, and as of June 30, 2005, as a non-housing speculation area as of June 30, 2005. Meanwhile, the Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, where the instant real estate is located, was designated as a balanced development promotion district as of November 18, 2003 publicly announced by Seoul, Seoul, and was designated and publicly announced as an urban environment improvement district as of March 13, 2006.

3) The non-party company acquired the instant real estate, etc. to implement an urban environment improvement project within the ○○l zone, which is an urban environment improvement zone, and was notified by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Mapo-gu") on May 4, 2006 of measures to preserve cultural heritage in relation to the urban environment improvement project. On June 19, 2006, the non-party company received a conditional decision on the traffic impact assessment from the Seoul Metropolitan Government Traffic Impact Deliberation Committee. On June 29, 2006, the non-party company was notified by the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Education of the results of prohibited acts in school environmental sanitation and Cleanup Zone and of the cancellation of facilities. On June 30, 2006, the non-party company was notified by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Construction

4) After that, on December 22, 2006, the non-party company filed an application with the head of Mapo-gu for authorization to implement the urban environmental improvement zone 01, and on May 25, 2007, the head of Mapo-gu notified the non-party company as the project implementer and publicly notified the authorization to implement the urban environmental improvement zone.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5 through Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the whole purport of pleading

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 85 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988, Feb. 28, 2007); Article 79-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2006, Dec. 30, 2006) provides that the project implementer shall be granted authorization of the project implementation under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8145, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of acquiring land, etc. within the designated area under Article 4 of the former Act before and after the date of the designation of the project implementer, and the transfer of real estate to the project implementer under the same Act cannot be deemed as having been granted to the owner of the land, etc., and that the transfer of land, etc. cannot be deemed as having been granted to the owner of the land, etc., for the purpose of urban or rural environment improvement project.

2) Determination

Examining the facts above in light of the aforementioned legal principles, although the non-party company was preparing for the urban environment rearrangement project as the owner of the land at the time of transferring the real estate of this case, it was before obtaining the approval of the implementation of the project, so the transfer of the real estate of this case is not subject to the application of the special taxation provisions of

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the non-party company, at the time of transfer of the instant real estate, obtained an authorization for partial implementation under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as notification of the result of the inspection of the cultural property index, shall be deemed to be the project implementer subject to the instant special taxation provisions. However, under the aforementioned legal principles, the project implementer who has obtained the authorization for project implementation as a condition to be subject to the instant special taxation provisions is clear that it would follow the project implementer under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and a series of administrative measures under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as notification of the measures to preserve cultural properties claimed by the Plaintiff, are merely the prior administrative measures to implement the urban rearrangement project. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an authorization for project implementation under the Urban

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair. The defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.