손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: 4-12 and 13-2; 4-9-10-2 and 5-7-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance are added as follows; 4-10-2 and 5-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance are deleted; 3-46 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 2-3-49 of the judgment of the court of first instance and 4-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: 3-46 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 4-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows; 5-13 through 7-15 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows; 420-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows:
2. Defendant B asserted that Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B was unlawful since the party who entered into a brokerage contract with the Plaintiff on real estate No. 2 was not the party himself, but the transfer income tax and resident tax imposed on the Plaintiff was based on the transfer of real estate No. 2.
In the lawsuit for performance, the person alleged as the performance obligor is eligible to be the party. Thus, the above ground alleged by the defendant B is only a ground to be judged as the plaintiff's claim, not a matter to be determined prior to the merits.
Therefore, Defendant B’s defense is without merit.
3. The following points, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts, the evidence, and the purport of Gap evidence No. 11 as well as the entire arguments, are as follows: ① A witness K is unaware of what is the capital gains tax imposed at the time of real estate transactions, and the Plaintiff and defendant B (or brokerage assistant) accompanied with the Plaintiff, who is not aware of what is the capital gains tax imposed at the time of real estate transactions, are divided into real estate transactions, and thus the testimony of the above witness cannot be deemed sufficient to support the plaintiff's assertion. ② The plaintiff is this.