Albnb Co., Ltd.

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

September 23, 2011

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of registration tax of KRW 33,508,530 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2010 and the imposition of local education tax of KRW 6,162,490 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Seoul LoadingNDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul LoadingND”) was a general trading business, miscellaneous retail, export and import business for the purpose of September 27, 199. The location of the principal office is Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the head office was established with the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, but reported the closure of business to the competent tax office on July 25, 2000.

B. On February 24, 2005, Nonparty 2, 3, and 4 acquired all the shares of the Seoul Loading Franz, and registered the business on October 19 of the same year with the trade name on the same day as Albnb Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as real estate development, lease and advisory service industry, real estate sale and sales business, etc., the location of the principal office was changed into the building of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter address omitted), and the executive officer was changed to Nonparty 2 and two others.

C. The Plaintiff Company was awarded one-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-one-six-six-six-six-six-six-one-six-six-six-one-six-six-six-one-six-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-five-one-six-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-one hundred-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-one hundred-five-five-five-five-five

D. On January 14, 2010, the Plaintiff Company received an application for ownership transfer registration with respect to the instant shares from the Seoul Eastern District Court. Accordingly, on January 18, 2010, the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) was made in its name with respect to the instant shares.

E. The Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of additional tax (including additional tax), Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), on the ground that the registration of the transfer of the instant real estate acquired within five years from February 24, 2005 by Nonparty 2, etc., a Dormant Corporation, by deducting the amount of registration tax already reported and paid to the Plaintiff on June 10, 2010 (including KRW 6,508,548,570), and KRW 6,162,490 (including additional tax) of the Local Tax Act, and KRW 70,570 (hereinafter referred to as “additional tax”).

F. On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 23, 201.

[Ground for Recognition: No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff company's assertion

For the following reasons, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

1) Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act includes the case of acquiring a dormant corporation in a large city on January 1, 2010. However, according to Article 6 of the Addenda to the Local Tax Act, Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1010, Jan. 1, 2010) is applicable to the registration of transfer of this case’s transfer under Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act). Thus, the registration tax and local education tax cannot be imposed on the registration of transfer of this case pursuant to Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act as amended on January 1, 2010.

2) The Plaintiff Company paid registration tax under the general tax rate for the transfer registration of this case before the amendment of the Local Tax Act on January 1, 2010, as well as the Defendant’s intentional increase in the amount of additional tax by giving prior notice of taxation is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith and thus, the portion of the penalty tax of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the first argument

A) Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act prior to the amendment by January 1, 2010 did not include the case where the establishment of a dormant corporation is taken over in a large city. However, Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act amended on January 1, 2010 included the case where the establishment of a dormant corporation is taken over in a large city, and Article 138(1)3 of the same Act provides that “this Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2010 (Article 1); “This Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2010”; “This Act shall apply from the case where the first liability for tax payment arises after this Act enters into force” (Article 2); “The previous provisions shall apply to any local tax imposed, reduced, or exempted under the previous provisions at the time this Act enters into force” (Article 6).

In full view of the above relevant provisions, Articles 1 and 2 of the Addenda of the Local Tax Act provide for the time of application of the general principle that the tax law at the time when the tax liability is established shall be applied, and Article 6 of the Addenda provides for the time of application thereof, and in cases where the tax law is amended disadvantageous to the taxpayer as an exception to the principle of non-payment of laws, the previous law that exceptionally applies to the taxpayer for the protection of the taxpayer's vested interest or trust, so even in cases where the former law, which was effective at the time of the act of cause before the establishment of the tax liability, stipulates that the tax liability shall be exempted or postponed for the future limited period, the previous law that is favorable to the taxpayer can be applied on the basis of Article 6 of the above Addenda, which is a special provision for the protection of the taxpayer's vested interest or trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du13713, May 29, 201).

B) However, Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act does not explicitly stipulate that the acquisition of a dormant corporation shall not be subject to the imposition of registration tax for a certain period of time even after the amendment of the aforementioned provision. Therefore, Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act does not explicitly stipulate that the above provision shall not be subject to the imposition of registration tax for a certain period of time. Thus, Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act does not stipulate that where a person liable for tax payment acquires a dormant corporation explicitly because it does not include the incorporation of a corporation in a large city, even if the registration or record was made after January 1, 2010, even if it was made after January 1, 2010, it cannot be deemed that Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act was merely merely a simple expectation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act is applicable to the acquisition of a dormant corporation only after the amendment of Article 138(1)38(1)3) of the former Local Tax Act.

C) On November 24, 2009, the Plaintiff Company taking over a dormant corporation, as seen earlier, acquired the instant shares on November 24, 2009, but the instant transfer registration was completed on January 18, 2010, and thus, it is subject to heavy registration tax, etc. pursuant to Articles 29(1)2, 138(1)3 and 260-2 of the Local Tax Act amended on January 1, 2010, and thus, the Plaintiff Company’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2) As to the second argument

A) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intention or negligence is not considered, but does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not constitute a breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du10545, Apr. 26, 2007; 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004).

B) On January 1, 2010, the fact that the Plaintiff Company had been unaware of the amendment of the Local Tax Act on January 1, 2010 does not constitute justifiable grounds for failing to breach of its duty to pay registration tax, etc., and the amount of additional tax should be calculated at the time of imposing additional tax, as well as the fact that the Plaintiff Company notified the Plaintiff Company on April 6, 2010 that additional tax may be imposed separately in addition to the additional tax on negligent tax returns by notifying the Plaintiff Company of the pre-announcement of the local tax assessment on April 6, 2010. Thus, the calculation of additional tax at the time of the instant disposition cannot be deemed to go against the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, the Plaintiff Company’s aforementioned assertion is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims of this case by the plaintiff company are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judge Thai-sai (Presiding Judge)