B. Whether a sales contract, which is intended to increase the sales price by the intention to actually pay the sales price until the agreed date as a measure to obtain tax reduction or exemption under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and whose due date is delayed, is invalid as a false declaration of agreement (negative)

C. Whether the transfer of assets, which are the taxation requirement of capital gains tax pursuant to the initial sales contract, is satisfied where the sales price pursuant to the real estate sales contract is liquidated, and the final return on tax base has expired, and the sales contract is rescinded by agreement and replaced by another sales contract (negative)

D. Whether a sales contract for evading capital gains tax is null and void as an anti-social legal act (negative)

(e) Where the purchaser bears the public charges due to transfer, the case holding that the seller’s obligation to transfer ownership is more than the buyer’s obligation to settle the public charges; and

B. In concluding a sales contract, if the sales amount is increased and the due date is delayed as a measure to reduce the tax burden by using the tax reduction and exemption system under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, it shall not be deemed null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy, unless the sales amount agreed to increase is actually paid by the agreed date.

C. In the event that the purchase price pursuant to the first sale and purchase contract for real estate is liquidated, and the period of final return on the tax base has expired, and thus, an abstract tax liability of capital gains tax was established, but the first sale and purchase contract is invalidated between the parties, and the second sale and purchase contract is replaced by the second sale and purchase contract, the first sale and purchase contract cannot be deemed as a transfer of assets, which are tax requirements of capital gains tax, because it becomes null and void due to the cancellation of the agreement, and

D. Even if a sales contract was concluded for the purpose of evading the transfer income tax, it cannot be said that the sales contract is null and void as an anti-social legal act under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

(e) The case holding that, in case where the purchaser bears the burden of transfer to a third party, the seller’s obligation to transfer ownership is more than the buyer’s obligation to settle the public charges.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) comprehensively assessed the following facts: (b) the Plaintiff’s main claim for the purchase price of the above real estate was KRW 30,000,000 for the remainder of KRW 15,00,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 10,000,00,000 for KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,00,000,00,00.

In comparison with the records, the court below is just in finding that the second contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant in addition to the first contract, and it cannot be denied the formation of the second contract merely because the date of the second contract was stated only in the date of the second contract as the date of the first contract when concluding the second contract. In addition, even if the evidence No. 3 (a copy of the sales contract) cited by the court below as evidence is a document in which the original is not present, as alleged by the defendant, if at least a document in the past is electronically copied, as it is alleged by the defendant as the defendant, it cannot be said that the court below erred by finding that the existence and authenticity of the original is recognized, and by finding it as evidence.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence, the incomplete hearing, or the omission of judgment.

B. The court below rejected the defendant's allegation that the second sales contract was null and void as a false declaration of intent made in collusion with the plaintiff and the defendant with the purpose of evading capital gains tax, etc. on the transfer of the above real estate. The plaintiff and the defendant concluded the first sales contract with the purport of exempting capital gains tax and income tax to be imposed only on capital gains tax as a matter of course pursuant to the provisions of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act. The plaintiff and the defendant concluded the first contract with the intent of reducing capital gains tax reduction and exemption to the maximum extent possible by using the tax reduction and exemption system under the above Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act. The plaintiff and the defendant did not register the transfer of ownership pursuant to the above contract until the approval of the execution of redevelopment project was delayed due to mutual understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff did not register the transfer of ownership pursuant to the above contract until the date of the second contract. The plaintiff and the defendant revised the date of liquidation of the purchase price at the time of the second contract, rather than just the increase in land price.

In comparison with the records, the court below was one of the motives for which the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to add the amount of KRW 20,000,000 to the initial purchase price by the second contract, and the part cited as "the consideration of land price increase during that period" was not sufficient support by evidence like theory. However, as duly admitted by the court below, the second contract was concluded as a countermeasure for the reduction and exemption of tax burden by utilizing the reduction and exemption system under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act as much as possible, and the second contract was concluded as a countermeasure for the reduction and exemption of tax burden by the intention to actually pay the purchase price agreed to increase until the agreed date, and thus, it cannot be said that it cannot be said that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was null and void as a false conspiracy. Therefore, the decision of the court

C. In regard to the argument that the portion of the first contract is an anti-social legal act, the fact that the purchase price under the first contract is liquidated as stated in its holding and the final return period for the final return on tax base has expired, and thus, the obligation to pay capital gains tax was established once it is in this case. However, in this case, the intention of the parties was to invalidate the first contract (cancellation of agreement) and substitute it for the second contract. In this case, the first contract cannot be deemed to have been transferred assets, which are the taxation requirement of capital gains tax, because it becomes null and void due to the cancellation of agreement and it did not transfer it. Thus, the first contract cannot be deemed that there was a transfer of assets, which are the taxation requirement of capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1991, Jul. 13, 199; Supreme Court Decision 8Nu8609, Jul. 11, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu916, May 12, 1987).

Therefore, the court below's decision that the second contract is legitimate is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the occurrence of tax liability such as theory of lawsuit, validity of anti-social legal act, and revocation thereof.

D. According to the reasoning of the judgment below on the simultaneous performance defense, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant can first file a claim against the plaintiff for the settlement of public charges, such as the above defense tax amount, only when the plaintiff received the above money in return for the repayment of the above money, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remaining money after deducting the expected defense tax amount already paid from the public charges. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above money in return for the repayment of the above money. Thus, the defendant can make a subsequent settlement of tax amount for the defense tax as seen above. After the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case was made on the ground of the second contract and the tax authority made a final decision on the transfer of the above real estate, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant's above defense is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the part that the court below continues to continue to exist in the second contract, which states that all the public charges to be imposed on the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff due to the transfer of the real estate in this case, but that the amount shall be settled later, and that the contents of the second contract are no longer effective due to the change in the contents of the second contract, it is obvious by the original adjudication that the part concerning the purchase price and the payment date of the remaining amount is the part concerning the purchase price and the payment date

E. In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's counterclaim part is not liable for the transfer income tax of the defendant's assertion, additional dues related thereto, resident tax to be imposed, etc., and the confirmation amount of defense tax anticipated to be imposed from the beginning exceeds the estimated defense tax amount already paid. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are justified and they are not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principle. Accordingly, the defendants' appeal is without merit.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

A. The amendment of some Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Income Tax Act, as in the theory of lawsuit between the first contract and the second contract of this case, is true, but the record reveals that "the defense tax amount to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is not a standard for the amount of tax actually imposed on the defendant, and the transfer income tax, etc. does not dispute if there is any difference in the amount although the plaintiff is not liable to pay it (record 498 pages)." Thus, in calculating the defense tax amount to be borne by the plaintiff, the court below recognized the transfer income tax amount actually imposed on the defendant according to the defendant's final return on tax base based on macro evidence, and did not clearly dispute this tax amount as stated in its reasoning, it is just to calculate the defense tax amount, and there is no error of law by inconsistent reasoning

B. Although the Plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal against the part of the Plaintiff’s main claim against which the explanation of the instant real estate was sought, this part of the appeal is not dismissed, since the grounds of appeal on this part are not indicated. All of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are without merit.

3. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.