The judgment of the court below has accepted the plaintiff's claim for this case on the ground that it is reasonable to view that the above legal principles are reasonable in light of the purpose of legislation and substance taxation principles of the above Act, and that there is no provision on the price increase in the above real estate price or the neighboring land price at the time of the grant, and that there is no provision on whether the above legal principles as to the price increase in the above land should be considered in consideration of the price increase in the above land's acquisition price or as to the price of the above land, which is to be deducted from the capital expenditure by the land seller pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 16 (1) of the same Act, and Article 9 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the land seller's construction of a new road and provide it to the State or a local government for convenience in the use of this land, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above legal principles are reasonable to view that the above existing market price standard of the neighboring land at the time of grant without consideration of the above legal principles as stated in Article 9 (1) and Article 4 of the above.

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)