1. On September 10, 2012, the head of Sungbuk District Tax Office levied an additional tax of KRW 734,618,210 on the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff for the year 2003.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) on the grounds of sale and purchase from B, and transferred the instant real estate to C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “C et al.”) on June 24, 2003.

B. On August 30, 2003, the Plaintiff submitted a return on the tax base of transfer income and its payment statement to the head of Sungbuk Tax Office (hereinafter “the head of the Defendant’s tax office”) with the transfer value of KRW 920,00,000, acquisition value of KRW 880,00,000, and transfer income amount of KRW 9,487,450.

C. The head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the same year from May 25, 2012

6. Until September 13, 201, the Plaintiff conducted an investigation of transfer income tax on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant investigation”) and deemed the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 1,950,00,000, and the head of the tax office, on September 1, 2012, the Defendant’s head of the tax office corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 734,618,210 (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax for the year 2003 and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “head of the Defendant”) of KRW 73,461,820 of the local income tax for the year 203 on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer income tax, etc.” in combination with the transfer income tax and local income tax, and the disposition of imposition of the said transfer income tax, etc. is referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, entry of evidence No. 1-2, No. 1-2, No. 1-2, and No. 1 and No. 2

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is either null and void or non-existence of the disposition on the ground that the defect is serious and clear as follows.

1. The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate from B, the debtor of the loan, as payment in substitutes, and sold it to B and two others. At the time of the acquisition of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate-related debt from B, the former owner of the instant real estate, and repaid the said debt in preference to the purchase price of B and two others. Accordingly, the transfer price and the acquisition price are excluded.