매매계약이 해제되어 양도가 아니라는 주장의 당부[국승]
Daejeon District Court 2010Guhap2410 ( November 24, 2010)
Cho High Court Decision 2009Hu4252 (2010.03.09)
Appropriateness of the assertion that the contract was rescinded and the transfer was not made.
In light of the fact that a sales contract was concluded to transfer all land (as in the judgment of the court of first instance) and the fact that the sales balance was fully received, the claimant's assertion that the sales contract was rescinded cannot be accepted.
2010Nu2744 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax
Park AA
○ Head of tax office
Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Guhap2410 Decided November 24, 2010
March 24, 2011
April 21, 201
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 259,294,467 against the plaintiff on May 1, 2009 shall be revoked.
The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "No. 9, 209.5.9" of No. 2, No. 2, No. 18, and No. 2009.9 of the first instance court's ruling shall be " May 1, 2009.1"; "No. 4, Dec. 30, 2005.30" of No. 1, "No. 2008.7, 2008.7" of No. 4, "No. 2008.7," "No. 7, 2008.7"; "No. 6, No. 8 between the plaintiff and the defendant" shall be "No. 150,00,000"; "No. 150,000" of No. 8, Dec. 12, 2009; "No. 1515,986, May 15, 2005"; "No. 25, etc.198.5"
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.