1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court should explain by the court of first instance are as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the judgment of the first instance, which is specifically emphasized or newly raised by this court, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff is particularly emphasizing in the trial and the judgment thereof

A. The summary of the argument 1) The meaning of the terms used in the new Act and the new Act and the new Act are as follows: Article 120(1)9 of the former Act provides that acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50% for the acquisition of real estate acquired by a special purpose company from an asset holder defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act or from another special purpose company on or before December 31, 2012 in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan registered pursuant to Article 3 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act. The above provision provides that acquisition tax shall be reduced by 50% for the acquisition of real estate acquired by a special purpose company on or before December 31, 2012. The phrase "acquisition" in the above provision is not interpreted as "acquisition by a special purpose company directly from an asset holder or another special purpose company (hereinafter referred to as "asset acquired in the course of managing, operating, etc. the securitization assets acquired from the asset holder, etc. in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan." Furthermore, the phrase of the former Act includes evidence No. 334.