1. Acquisition tax imposed on the Plaintiff on September 19, 2014 by the Defendant, KRW 67,422,880, local education tax, KRW 6,278,60, and special rural development tax.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 8, 2010, the Plaintiff, a special purpose company established for the purpose of taking over and transferring securitized assets pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (hereinafter “Asset-Backed Securitization Act”) and the management, operation, and disposal of securitized assets through an asset management company, acquired securitization assets, such as loan claims, etc. secured by a special purpose company, which was established for the purpose of taking over and transferring securitized assets pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and for the management, operation, and disposal of securitized assets through an asset management company, around October 28, 2010

B. In order to recover the above loan claims, the Plaintiff directly participated in the auction procedure for the instant real estate, and was determined to permit the sale of the instant real estate as the purchaser on November 14, 201, and paid the sale price in full on December 2, 2011.

C. On May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax, local education tax, and special tax for rural development, calculated by deducting 50/100 of the tax amount from the tax amount to the Defendant pursuant to Articles 119(1)13 and 120(1)12 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”).

On September 19, 2014, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 67,42,80, local education tax of KRW 6,278,60, and special rural development tax of KRW 2,90,940 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate does not constitute reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “new Act”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Articles 119(1)13 and 120(1)12 of the former Act applicable to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 through interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the former Act.