The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Articles 120(1)12 and 119(1)13 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) provide that “Where a special purpose company acquires, operates, or disposes of securitization assets from an originator or another special purpose company in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan, acquisition tax on real estate acquired by December 31, 2012 shall be reduced by 50/100.” However, Article 120(1)9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “special provisions for special purpose companies”) provides that “acquisition tax on real estate acquired by a special purpose company from an originator or another special purpose company in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan shall be reduced by 120(1)13/100 of the acquisition tax on real estate acquired by the special purpose company in accordance with the asset-backed securitization plan.”

In light of the language and structure of the aforementioned provision, and the amended special provisions of the Act on the Special Cases of Taxation with respect to a special purpose company, in order to reasonably coordinate the scope of special cases of taxation with respect to a special purpose company and promote the equity of taxation with general creditors, the “real estate acquired by a special purpose company for the management, operation, and disposal of the acquired securitization assets by the special purpose company” as stipulated in the former Special Provisions of the same Act can be excluded from the acquisition tax reduction or exemption. Thus, the secured real estate acquired by the special purpose company by directly filing an application for purchase at the auction procedure of the secured real estate for the collection of the claims

(b) the same;