1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below rejected all evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the real estate in this case was cultivated as an orchard for not less than eight years and was cultivated under its own account and responsibility, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiff cultivated it. The court below's decision that rejected the plaintiff's assertion is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles of non-taxation

2. On the second ground for appeal

The purpose of Article 98 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4520 of Dec. 8, 1992, hereinafter the same) is to pay in advance a considerable amount of tax prior to the determination of imposition and collection of transfer income tax. Thus, the purpose of the tax credit system is to compensate the amount equivalent to the interest accrued from advance payment, and to promote the convenience and efficiency of collection by encouraging voluntary payment, so it is attributable to the purpose of compensating for the amount corresponding to the interest accrued from such advance payment, and thus, it can be applied only to the person who has made a preliminary return of gains from transfer of assets and who has made a actual voluntary payment accordingly. Therefore, even if the taxpayer’s refusal to make a preliminary return is due to the erroneous tax guidance or consultation of the public official related to the novel company, it

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff found the defendant around January 16, 192 and asked the tax official under its jurisdiction to impose capital gains tax on the transfer of the real estate of this case, and submitted a resident registration copy, sales contract, Korea Land Development Corporation's expropriation confirmation center, etc. according to the tax official's guidance that the tax official would substitute the plaintiff's seal on the return form, and then submitted a copy of the register of the real estate of this case and a copy of the land cadastre, etc. upon the tax official's request for correction. The court below rejected the court below's determination that the transfer income tax of this case was non-taxable or calculated under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, or did not meet the tax amount to be reduced or exempted on the ground that the tax official failed to notify the plaintiff of the tax amount of the transfer income tax of this case, which was not in violation of the provisions of Article 95 (1) and 96 (1) of the former Income Tax Act concerning the transfer margin of the taxpayer's property and the amount of voluntary payment.

However, the court below did not explicitly determine the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case by the defendant violates the principle of good faith as provided in Articles 15 and 19 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or the limit of tax officials' discretion, but it can be viewed to the purport of rejecting it according to the reasoning of the judgment, and even if the decision was omitted, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's disposition of this case was in violation of the above provision, and thus, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal related to this cannot

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)