1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no obligation to pay the remainder of capital gains tax and local income tax, excluding the amount equivalent to capital gains tax calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff should pay the amount equivalent to the capital gains tax and local income tax incurred from the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of the capital gains tax and the amount equivalent to the local income tax incurred by the instant sales contract for the portion that the Plaintiff failed to file a return and pay within the time limit set by the Income Tax Act and the Local Tax Act, but, on the ground that only the amount equivalent to the additional charges set forth in subparagraphs 5-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 5-2 falls under

However, such determination by the lower court is difficult to accept as is.

The additional tax and the additional tax on non-return, claiming that the Defendant should be deducted from the amount equivalent to the tax to be paid to the Plaintiff, are based on the premise that the Plaintiff was unable to make a return and payment within the time limit, and if the amount claimed by the Plaintiff includes each of the above additional tax, the above additional tax should be deducted even according

According to the records, one household is under the name of the Plaintiff on December 30, 2013, for which the preliminary return deadline has lapsed with respect to the instant trade.