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

A. On November 1, 199, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Nonparty to purchase each real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the purchase price of five billion won (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On December 16, 1999, the Plaintiff voluntarily reported acquisition tax of KRW 100 million and special rural development tax amount of KRW 10 billion with the tax base amount of KRW 5 billion (hereinafter “instant imposition disposition”).

B. As the Plaintiff did not pay acquisition tax according to the above report, on May 16, 200, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to pay acquisition tax of KRW 120 million (including additional taxes) and special rural development tax of KRW 11 million (including additional taxes), and on April 1, 2003, notified the Plaintiff to pay acquisition tax of KRW 174,960,00 (including additional taxes) and special rural development tax of KRW 16,038,00 (including additional taxes).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1- 3 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4-7 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff, after entering into the instant sales contract with the Nonparty, rescinded the instant sales contract without paying the purchase price, and did not acquire the instant real estate, the Plaintiff was not liable to pay acquisition tax. Therefore, the instant disposition did not exist.

B. Even if the instant disposition exists, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay acquisition tax as above, and the Nonparty filed an application for the revocation of the imposition of capital gains tax related to the sale of the instant real estate after the rescission of the instant sales contract, and the Nonparty did not impose capital gains tax on the Nonparty. Therefore, the defect in the instant disposition is grave and obvious and invalid.

3. Determination

The Plaintiff indicated the tax amount of the instant disposition in the purport of the claim in the amount indicated in the Defendant’s notice for payment as of April 1, 2003. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion content and the Plaintiff’s developments leading up to the amendment of the Plaintiff’s claim, the disposition of imposition that the Plaintiff raised is deemed the instant disposition of imposition as of December 16, 199, and thus, the following is examined.

A. As to the main claim

(1) With respect to the acquisition of real estate, in a case where the actual requirements for the acquisition of ownership such as the payment of the price are not satisfied without the form of transfer of ownership such as the registration, acquisition tax liability shall not be established. However, in a case where an act to determine a tax obligation was performed even without an abstract tax liability, even when there is no abstract tax liability, the obligation to perform the finalized tax liability shall be borne, unless the act of confirmation is revoked or it

(2) On December 16, 199, the Plaintiff filed a voluntary report on acquisition tax, etc. on the following grounds: (a) as seen earlier; and (b) as to acquisition tax, which is a tax on the method of tax return, the taxpayer’s filing of tax return is effective to determine the tax liability; (c) as such, the Plaintiff bears the duty to perform the final tax liability, unless the filing of a voluntary report on acquisition tax, etc. is revoked or it is recognized as null and void as a matter of course; and therefore, (d) it cannot be deemed that there

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to the conjunctive claim

(1) In order for a taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient. The defect is objectively apparent in violation of important laws and regulations, and it is necessary to reasonably consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the taxation disposition, and to reasonably consider the characteristics of the specific case itself. From this point of view, in a case where a taxation disposition against a person who has no legal relation or factual relations, which is the basis for the taxation disposition, is significant and apparent, but it can only be found that there is objective reason to believe that the legal relation or factual relations, which is not subject to taxation, are subject to taxation, are subject to taxation, and it can not be said that it is apparent that the factual basis is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be said that the taxation disposition that misleads the fact is null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5893, Jun. 9, 200).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party submitted an application to revoke capital gains tax on March 10, 200 on the grounds of the cancellation of the sales contract of this case on March 10, 200, and the non-party did not impose capital gains tax on the non-party. Meanwhile, considering the overall purport of pleadings in Gap's Nos. 3, 4, and Eul's Nos. 1 and 4-7 (including the provisional number) on December 16, 199, the plaintiff filed a voluntary declaration of acquisition tax, etc. on the real estate of this case on May 16, 200; the defendant notified the plaintiff of the payment of acquisition tax, etc. on April 1, 200; the non-party failed to pay the remainder of the sales contract of this case on September 1, 2005 to the non-party on the ground that the non-party did not receive acquisition tax, etc. (including additional tax) on the non-party's sales contract of this case on September 27, 20000.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main and ancillary claims that are changed in exchange at the trial are all without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition (the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of acquisition tax as of April 1, 2003, the previous lawsuit was withdrawn from the exchange change of the lawsuit at the trial and the judgment of the first instance was invalidated).

[Attachment Form Omission of Indication of Real Estate]

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)