소유권이전등기
1. Each of the appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the preliminary counterclaim extended in the trial is dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including attached Form), except for the addition of “new determination on a new assertion” as to the part claimed additionally in the trial of first instance, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay acquisition tax of KRW 8,061,320 on the acquisition of shares in the instant land, in addition to the unpaid sale price.
According to Gap evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the "comforcing of payment details" column of the statement of payment for the purchase price sent by the defendant to the plaintiff was written with the shower price of KRW 6,316,50 in addition to the sale price and KRW 8,061,320 in acquisition tax.
① However, the sales contract (Evidence A) signed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant only set the supply price of the apartment of this case at KRW 483,316,50 (the sale price of this case at KRW 477,00,000) and the shower price at KRW 6,316,50 (the shower price at KRW 6,500), and there was no agreement on acquisition tax. ② The evidence (Evidence A5) delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2009 that completely paid the price at KRW 185,316,50, including the remainder of KRW 6,316,50,00, and no unpaid acquisition tax was stated. The occupancy certificate (Evidence 6) that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff the purchase price at KRW 47,00,00,00 and that the Plaintiff occupied the apartment of this case at the time of the purchase price at KRW 70,70,707, 207, as to the purchase price at issue.