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

(a) Details of the disposition;

O Acquisition and transfer of real estate by the plaintiff

- On March 22, 1995, July 7, 1997, and December 26, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired each land of 109.4m2 and its ground, located in Seoul XX-dong 390-6, and land located in the same 390-25m25m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

- On May 4, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the instant real estate to XXDF, but around July 20, 2005, the Plaintiff succeeded to the buyer’s status and rights and obligations under the above sales and purchase contract, and transferred the instant real estate upon receiving the remainder payment of the instant real estate from OOBF Entertainment on December 7, 2006 as the Plaintiff succeeded to the buyer’s status and rights and obligations.

O Claim for Correction by the plaintiff

On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid 173,714,585 won (586,656,127 won) as capital gains tax calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price of the instant real estate as the instant real estate falls under an speculative area, upon the scheduled return and payment of capital gains tax for the transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendant on February 28, 2006. On May 30, 2007, the Defendant reported and paid 173,714,585 won (the amount of capital gains tax for the instant real estate) as the capital gains tax calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price of the instant real estate. On May 30, 2007, Article 85 subparagraph 5 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8146, Dec. 30, 2006); Article 79-2 (1) (hereinafter “Special Taxation Provisions”) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 198888, Feb. 28, 39, 394397.

O The defendant's rejection disposition

On July 30, 2007, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the transferee’s ODD Entertainment was not designated as a public project operator until the time of transfer of the instant real estate.

O Pre-trial Procedure, etc.

On October 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for an adjudication on the instant disposition, but the said petition was dismissed on July 14, 2008. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 10, 208.

(b) Designation of an urban environmental improvement zone and authorization for project implementation;

The Seoul XX-gu, where the real estate of this case belongs, was designated as an speculation district other than the housing on June 30, 2005. Meanwhile, the PA-gu, where the real estate of this case is located, was designated as a balanced development facilitation district under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2003-374 on November 18, 2003, and was designated and announced as an urban environment improvement district under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2006-87 on March 13, 2006.

OOE Investment acquired the instant real estate, etc. to implement an urban environment improvement project within AA zone, which is an urban environment improvement zone, while formulating an urban environment improvement project implementation plan for AA zone, and was notified by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 4, 2006 of measures to preserve cultural heritage related to an urban environment improvement project. On June 16, 2006, the Seoul Metropolitan Government Deliberation Committee on Traffic Impact Assessment was made conditional decision on traffic impact assessment, and was notified by the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Education on June 29, 2006 of the results of prohibited acts and removal of facilities in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone, and was notified by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Construction Committee on June 30, 2006.

(O) After the date of settling the remainder of the instant real estate ( December 7, 2006), the Odilabel applied to the head of Mapo-gu on December 22, 2006 for authorization to implement the urban environmental improvement zone A, and the head of Mapo-gu notified the implementation authorization and announcement of the urban environmental improvement zone B, the project implementer of which is the project implementer, on May 25, 2007. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20190, May 25, 2007>

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and issues

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate before the date of designation of the rearrangement zone and transferred it to the transferee who is an urban environmental improvement project implementer before December 31, 2006, as stipulated in the special taxation provisions of this case, the instant special taxation provisions apply to calculating the transfer income tax from the transfer of the instant real estate, and thus, the disposition of this case refusing to file a request for correction by the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Until the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, the provisions of the special taxation of this case do not apply to the project implementer because the Oddddddddddddg Entertainment, the transferee, was not authorized to implement an urban environment

C. Key issue of the instant case

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the special taxation provision of this case can be applied by deeming the person who did not obtain authorization to implement the project at the time of transfer as the implementer of the project stipulated in the special taxation provision of this case, where the real estate was transferred to a person who intends to implement the project without obtaining authorization to implement the urban environment improvement zone

3. Determination

A. First, with respect to an urban environment improvement project implemented by the owners of land, etc. under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), the special provisions of this case are applicable only to the transfer of real estate to the owners of land, etc. who have obtained authorization for the implementation of the project, unless there are special circumstances such as being designated as the project implementer. If the owners of land, etc. did not obtain authorization for the implementation of the project at the time of the transfer, it shall be interpreted that the special provisions of this case cannot be applicable even if the owner of land, etc. received authorization for the implementation of the project after the death. As seen above, as seen above, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the real estate to the OEF, the transferee of the real estate did not obtain authorization for the implementation of the project under the Urban Improvement Act, and thus, the special provisions of this case cannot be applied in calculating capital gains

B. However, the Plaintiff’s recent Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14088 Decided May 26, 201, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13517 Decided May 26, 201), which issued the above conclusion, cited that even in a case where real estate is transferred to the owner of the land, etc. before obtaining authorization for a project implementation based on its determination, if the special taxation provision of this case is applied, the requirements for the special taxation of this case can be unclear as the base point of time is unclear. However, in the case of the transfer of real estate, the Plaintiff asserts that the requirements for the exemption of this case’s special taxation can be subject to the special taxation of this case, since the base point of time is clearly unclear.

However, unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the Oden Entertainment at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate was notified of the result of the assessment of the cultural property index as the owner of the land, it shall be deemed that the Oden Entertainment was preparing for an urban environment rearrangement project as the owner of the land, etc., and it was before obtaining the authorization for the implementation of the project. Therefore, the conclusion that the instant transfer is not subject to the special taxation provisions of this case cannot be changed [the above Supreme Court Decisions (Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du14088 Decided May 26, 201; 2010Du13517 Decided May 26, 201)].

C. Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction is lawful.

4. Conclusion

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