A lawsuit is filed after five years have elapsed from September 4, 2009, for which the right to claim damages was established.

12. Inasmuch as it is apparent that only the case was raised on April 14, the above claim for national compensation is an action of this case.

“Before the lapse of the statute of limitations”

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

The plaintiff's appeal is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

14. From the date of service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the date of service of the copy, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date

shall pay the amount of money calculated in the proportion of each of the following.

The reasoning for this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "4. 5. '3. 'the judgment of the court of first instance'; "the 9. 'the 12. 'Ma'; "the 16. 'the conclusion of the 16. 'the 16. 'the 16. 'the conclusion'; "the 5. 'the 16. 'the 16. 'the conclusion'; and "the 2. 'the 16. 'the 16. 'the ' the 16. 'the 'the 5.

2. Additional determination

The following is added to Chapter 11 of the judgment of the first instance court. Ma. The Plaintiff established the established rules of this case, which provide that the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the National Tax Service, as an institution affiliated with the Defendant, and the special deduction rate for long-term possession of one house per household, cannot be applied to non-residents, and the act of interpreting such rules continuously and repeatedly violates the laws and regulations intentionally or by negligence while performing duties, and the Plaintiff violated the established rules of this case.

It seems that it is also argued that the transfer income tax is illegal because it actually forces the plaintiff to report and pay the transfer income tax, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff.

In general, in enacting the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule, a public official who is engaged in administrative legislation does not know the relevant laws and regulations or has necessary knowledge.

- 3- If the Enforcement Decree, etc. was enacted on the wind that is in violation of superior laws and regulations, the interpretation of superior laws and regulations shall not be deemed as being not a legal expert, but shall not be deemed as not negligent. However, the interpretation of superior laws and regulations itself is not clear, so there may be a variety of opinions on the interpretation of superior laws and regulations.

In a case where there is room for the public official to find a reasonable ground and interpret a superior law in accordance with one opinion, and accordingly, the Enforcement Decree was enacted. If the interpretation of the superior law is the same as the interpretation of the Supreme Court last, and as a result, the provision of the Enforcement Decree is illegal, and as a result, an administrative disposition is also illegal, thereby bringing about the result of the enactment of the illegal law and the illegal enforcement of the law. Thus, it is difficult to expect a faithful average public official who is in charge of the pertinent work, so even in such a case, there is no negligence of public official under the State Compensation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da15735, May 28, 1997). Thus, in this case, it is difficult to conclude that Article 29 of the Income Tax Act was enacted or amended as the Act No. 971, Jul. 14, 201; and there is no evidence that Article 91 of the Act was enacted or otherwise amended as the Act No. 9720, supra. -19.

It can be seen that exclusion was made only).

The plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

The following is added between ○○, No. 9, No. 15, and ’.’. Even if the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff would be entitled to the long-term holding special deduction rate of one house per household before the Supreme Court Decision 2009Du21147 was rendered, such a case would not be deemed as a case where there was a cause under the Plaintiff’s exercise of rights. Accordingly, even if the State’s claim for national compensation claimed by the Plaintiff is recognized, it is difficult to deem that there was a cause under the Plaintiff’s exercise