The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

On the first ground for appeal

1. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact are acceptable. The court below's finding that the non-party Dongdong Housing Development Co., Ltd. did not recognize that the non-party Dongdong Housing Development Co., Ltd. submitted an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax against the plaintiff, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing, and the court below's rejection of the non-party's testimony against the rules of evidence cannot

In addition, since the above company cannot be concluded to have submitted a written application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax to the competent tax office only with the fact that it prepared and delivered the written application for reduction or exemption to the plaintiff, even if the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s written application for reduction or exemption to prove that it was issued to the plaintiff, it cannot be said that

There is no reason to discuss the issues of the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.

On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 62(3)(1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989) and Article 50(10) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12881 of Dec. 30, 1989), where a national transfers a parcel of land to the Korea Land Development Corporation or other end-user as prescribed by the Presidential Decree as a construction site less than national housing size under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, capital gains tax or special surtax due to the transfer of the land shall be exempted, but where the purchaser fails to file a tax base return within the period of the taxable year to which the date of transfer belongs to the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the address of the transferor, it shall not be exempt from capital gains tax, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu1462 of May 24, 198; 8Nu959659 of Apr. 11, 1989; 295Nu1596598.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's disposition of imposition imposed without exempting the transfer income tax of this case is legitimate on the premise that the company, which purchased one half of the share of the land of this case from the plaintiff to the same purport, did not file an application for exemption of the tax amount against the plaintiff, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is that the above several provisions do not stipulate the procedural requirements for tax exemption, but merely stipulate the procedural provisions for the convenience of tax administration, but they cannot be accepted as an independent opinion.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)