​Company B, the project operator of a regional specialization project, acquired the project site in dispute from a local government. The company promised to donate development gains (goods or money) that would be obtained through land development and the complex site for education and medical services to a university pursuant to a special agreement, and paid the acquisition tax for the project site. However, the authorities imposed KRW 19.7 billion (including additional tax) by including the money and site, which were to be donated to a university, in the taxation standard for the calculation of acquisition tax for the project site under the determination that the money and site were indirect cost required to acquire the project site.

DR & AJU set forth its argument in the procedure to request examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea as follows: as the acquisition price of the taxable object is of the one that the source of payment is confirmed by the other party of transactions or a third party before acquisition of the taxable object, it is possible to determine that the acquisition price was paid at the price of the proper object itself. In addition, even the equivalent cost for acquisition procedure might be included as indirect cost. However, if it is an object or a right other than the object for acquisition, so that it cannot be judged to be the price for the proper object itself, then the confirmed source of payment cannot be deemed to be included in the acquisition price of the taxable object. Accordingly, it is not acceptable to consider such price to be the taxation standard of acquisition tax.’

On the basis of the above mentioned legal principle, DR & AJU argued its logic through close analysis of the characteristics of the land development project, related contracts and agreements and successfully obtained a favorable judgement.