1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax attributed to the Plaintiff on March 2, 201, 172,317.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B on February 15, 2007, acquired KRW 717,700,00 from among the 16th floor buildings of reinforced concrete structure C and D (hereinafter “instant building”) of Yongsan-gu Seoul and D’s 16th floor in the auction procedure, and transferred it to E on May 3, 2007.

B, if the building of this case was transferred to the competent tax office in KRW 750,000,000, the transfer income tax was calculated and reported.

(1) The acquisition value (cost) 254,165,189 50,00,000 F Shares 463,534,811 910,500,000 Aggregates 717,700,000 1,410,500,500

B. In fact, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s share in the acquisition and transfer value as follows and imposed KRW 172,317,520 (including additional tax) on March 2, 201 on the Plaintiff on March 2, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff and F acquired the instant building by lending the name B, and then transferred it to E in KRW 1,410,50,000:

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was unlawful in the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff and F acquired the instant building in the name of the Plaintiff and F, since the Plaintiff was merely a creditor against F and did not bear the purchase fund of the instant building.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion was not a simple creditor against F, but an investor, and acquired the instant building jointly with F, and transferred it to E. In return for the transfer, the Plaintiff was exempted from the Plaintiff’s debt KRW 500 million. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) In fact, the Plaintiff’s violation of the Act on the Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (1) accepted L Co., Ltd., which operated the instant building by leasing it around 2004, and operated a bath in the name of “K”.

(2) The Plaintiff goes against F from around 2005.