양도소득세경정청구거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons why the court of the first instance should explain are as follows: (a) the reasons why the plaintiff is required to refer to the argument that the court of the first instance emphasizes in particular, or re-convened, is identical to the reasons of the first instance judgment, except for addition under the following: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion is the meaning of the medicinal language used by the plaintiff below the land of this case as the judgment of the court of first instance.
In a lawsuit seeking cancellation of registration of transfer of ownership, the Plaintiff asserted that he acquired ownership through a real estate sales contract with D around April 1979, and did not specify the date of liquidation of the price of the sales contract. The Plaintiff’s acquisition time of ownership is not specified in the judgment. The land in this case was leased to a private person from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007 and the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the State on April 14, 1995, and the Plaintiff was not exercised its ownership. In light of the fact that the ownership registration was completed in the name of the State during the period from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007, the land in this case
Therefore, even though the time of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s land in this case is deemed to be the date on which the Plaintiff received the application for ownership transfer registration, the disposition of this case refusing the Plaintiff’s request for correction by deeming that the Plaintiff acquired the land in this case before December 31, 1984 is unlawful.
B. The following circumstances, which were acknowledged by the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this judgment, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from GD around April 1979, and was sentenced on May 3, 2007 by F, etc. to the Plaintiff on April 17, 201, for the following reasons: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23290, Jan. 17, 2011>