1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 29, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of a housing site in the long-term area and the non-party SPP and the long-term area (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The construction of this case’s contents include the creation of housing sites for constructing 13 housing complexes by performing soil, excellent water, sewage, water supply, packing, structure engineering, and incidental works on the total supplied area of 648,194 square meters in a housing site development zone composed of the following table:

The term "amount supplied" means an area where 334,980 square meters are supplied at a price by Embaco Corporation with a total supply area of 648,194 square meters.

The term "area of free supply" means an area where E.S. Corporation supplies 313,214 square meters free of charge.

National housing construction site 238,492 square meters and other 96,488 square meters, special schools, welfare facilities, sewage systems, parks, green areas, etc. 313,214 square meters;

B. The Plaintiff initially rendered the return and payment of value-added tax and corporate tax on the premise that the instant construction service was subject to value-added tax; however, as a result of a review of the payment status of value-added tax on the national housing construction service implemented by EP from August 30, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded that Article 106(1)4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides that the instant construction service shall be exempted from value-added tax on the national housing construction service, is applicable to EP as to the instant construction service; on July 24, 2007, the Plaintiff ordered EP to take measures to reduce the amount of value-added tax on the site that the portion corresponding to the ratio of the “construction site for national housing” in the instant construction service is subject to value-added tax and the value-added tax already appropriated, on the premise that the instant construction service is subject to value-added tax exemption; and, on the other hand, EPP from around 30, 2007 to urge the Plaintiff to enter into a modified contract.