2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in each corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff’s decision on the additional assertion was presented. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the claim group was established by the creditor of the construction cost, etc., after the △△ Co., Ltd. was settled on March 31, 1998, and the claim group actually operated △△ Co., Ltd. on March 30, 200, the claim group and △△△ Co., Ltd. agreed to be exempted from the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the debt amount of △△ on March 30, 200 and paid the remainder of 1/2. The claim group was dissolved on September 7, 200, and the claim group was dissolved to receive 1/2 of the claim amount from △△△ Co., Ltd. on September 7, 200, and the plaintiff notarized the claim group with a promissorysory note amounting to 5.7 billion won. Considering these circumstances, the plaintiff did not expect that the plaintiff would receive the land use price prior to or on an equal basis from △△ Co., Ltd. in light of social norms and customs.

According to the statements in Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7, 8, Gap evidence 14-1 through 9, and Gap evidence 15-1 through 10, the representative of the bond group composed of non-party 2, etc. and insurance company, on April 23, 1998, agreed to agree with the representative of the bond group on the management of the company, such as the execution of funds and the management of funds, etc. on April 23, 1998. The plaintiff and insurance company, on June 1, 1998, jointly issued a promissorysory note amounting to 5.7 billion won with the non-party 3, who are the representative of insurance company, and written a notarial deed on it. The bond group composed of the non-party 4 with the chairperson, received on March 30, 200 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 are entitled to the full exemption amount equivalent to 1/20 of the total amount of the bonds to be paid to the non-party 1/12.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not take precedence over the △ Credit Group, it was able to receive rent for the year 199 on the land of this case in equal status with the △ Credit Group, which does not change because the Plaintiff issued a promissory note of KRW 5.7 billion to Nonparty 2 and prepared a notarial deed on this issue. Thus, if the Plaintiff did not receive rent for the year 1999 if it is an economy, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s failure to receive rent for the year 199 would unreasonably reduce the tax burden on the income equivalent to the rent income by failing to receive rent.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ahn Young-chul (Presiding Judge)