2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OO, OO, and OO(including additional taxes) for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2013 owed to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2017 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The reasoning for this part of the judgment by the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion and relevant statutes

The reasons for the judgment in this part are the same as that for each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

B. Facts of recognition

1) In the Plaintiff’s name of XB, X. XX. 194, the purchase price of the instant land was KRW 765 million with CCC as of X. 1994. Of the above payments, KRW 100 million was paid on the date of concluding a contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 400 million was paid and paid to X. XX., the remainder 265 million on 1994. X., and the remainder of KRW 265 million was paid to XX., respectively, and CCC prepared a sales contract (a evidence No. 1 (the same as evidence No. 26-2, hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) to cooperate with BB for the use of the instant land as a graveyard at the time of concluding a contract.

2) From the O securities account in the name of the Plaintiff, X. XX. OO, OO, and OOO in the name of the Plaintiff’s East EE, the amount of KRW X. 10 million in X. X. 1,00, X. X. 9,00 in X. X. 94, and the amount of KRW 90 million in X. X. 9,000 in the name of the Plaintiff was withdrawn respectively from the △ Bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, △△ Bank in the name of the Plaintiff. XX. EX, OO, OO, and OO. in the name of the Plaintiff.

3) 원고는 1994. X. XX.과 1994. X. XX. 두 차례에 걸쳐 ■■ 등에 있던 원고 가족의 조상 산소 X기를 이 사건 토지로 이장하였다.

4) As to the instant land, the registration of provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal in the name of EE was completed under the support of B/L District Court of X. X. 2, 194, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of X. 2, 200,000 won was completed on 1994. X. BB’s maximum debt amount.

5) 주식회사 PP은행은 1994. X. XX. ●●지방법원 ●●지원 XX타경XXXX호로 이

The above court applied for an auction of the real estate rent with respect to the land of this case and received a decision to start an auction of X. 1994 from the above court (hereinafter referred to as the "auction of this case"). The above court decided to grant a successful bid to X. BB on 1994, when BB filed a bid report of KRW 64.5 million with the highest price in the auction of this case, the above court decided to grant a successful bid to X. 2 on 1994. X. X. 195 with respect to the land of this case on X. 195, the transfer registration for ownership transfer was completed due to the successful bid of X. X. 194.

6) Meanwhile, the following receipts and agreements were prepared in the name of the CCC.

X. X. X. 100 million won (Evidence A4 (Evidence A28)): part payments of KRW 400 million

statement that part of the receipt is received

X. X. 400 million won (Evidence A8 (the same shall apply to evidence A30)): Receipt of intermediate payment.

(2) Any balance of KRW 265 million shall be received at the same time as the transfer of ownership in the name of BB.

X. X. 30 million won (the same shall apply to evidence A32): the Plaintiff’s husband.

F. Statement that the FF is received as part of the balance

O. X. X. 265 million won (Evidence A. 11 (the same shall apply to the evidence A. 33): Balance.

Terms and Conditions

X. X.S. Agreement and Receipt (Evidence A12): A statement that the purchase price is KRW 765 million, down payment is KRW 100 million, the first intermediate payment is KRW 400 million, the second intermediate payment is KRW 200 million, the successful bid price is KRW 64.5 million, which is concluded with ACC.

7) The Plaintiff: GG, the birth of CCC at the Dog Bank's Dog branch in 1994 P. XX. △△ Bank.

The actual tax amount of KRW 20 million was transferred to the bank account.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1-9, 11-14, 21, 25-33, 39, Eul 1 and 2 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply)'s statements or images, the testimony of witnesses GG of the trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the above facts and evidence Nos. 35-38 to the overall purport of the arguments, the acquisition value of the land of this case shall be KRW 765 million. Thus, the prior disposition of this case should be revoked on a different premise.

(1) At the date of the second pleading for pleading of a political party, this Court shall grant from the plaintiff A1, A4, A8, and A10

According to the evidence, evidence, evidence No. 11, and evidence No. 12 received each original of the evidence No. 11 and evidence No. 12 and confirmed the material quality of the paper, the degree of math, the shape of the writing, the condition of custody, etc., each of the above documentary evidence appears to have been preserved for a long time by the plaintiff, not to have been prompt since the time of the instant lawsuit. Thus, each of the above documentary evidence can be sufficiently ratified by the plaintiff on the date of its preparation, and there is no other circumstance to interfere with such ratification.

In addition, 25 years have passed since the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, and it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff was falsely prepared and kept each of the above receipts in order to claim against the Plaintiff in mind the transfer income tax to be imposed after the transfer of the instant land, in consideration of the transfer income tax to be imposed after the transfer of the said land.

② The Plaintiff purchased the instant land in order to prepare a cemetery site in which a mountain site would be removed from the mountain site due to the acquisition process of the instant land. X. 194, the immediately preceding the date of the contract, X. 2,00 won deposited in the O securities under the name of DD and the intermediate payment was all withdrawn by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s content of the special agreement on the instant sales contract, the date of the contract and the intermediate payment, the record of A2, the document No. 5 (written confirmation of HH’s document), and the record of the document No. 5 (written confirmation) are consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion. In fact, the Plaintiff’s payment date of intermediate payment was long, and thus, it appears that the mountain field X was removed from the instant land.

③ Meanwhile, at the instant auction, BB was awarded the instant land in KRW 64.5 million; from X. 194 to X, BB paid KRW 500 million in total as the down payment and intermediate payment; however, the fact that BB was subject to the establishment of a collateral security right in the name of X. BB on 1994 and the secured debt amounting to KRW 40 million is contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the acquisition price of the instant land was KRW 7.65 million and that BB was fully paid to CCC. Moreover, it is not easily acceptable that BB, a party to the auction procedure, was not notified of the instant auction.

However, the plaintiff did not know the fact of the auction of this case at all, and he knew the fact at the time of receiving the registration document of the land of this case on X, X, 195, and the successful bid of this case was made in the name of BB with the knowledge that the seller was made at will using the sales contract of this case. The seller's claim that the secured debt of this case was made at KRW 40 million for the purpose of saving the registration cost. The plaintiff's claim is not necessarily incompatible with the fact of payment of KRW 50 million for the auction of this case, such as the progress of the auction of this case and the intermediate payment, etc., but rather is not necessarily incompatible with the fact of payment of the remainder receipt (Evidence No. 11) (O. X. 1, 195) or on the date of transferring the registration of the land of this case (X. X.), the agreement and receipt (Evidence No. 12) to support the plaintiff's claim.

Furthermore, at any time after the payment of intermediate payment, the Plaintiff had withdrawn 2450 million won from the Plaintiff’s account in order to pay the balance when the contact with the seller was contacted. However, CCC’s contact was interrupted due to dishonor and escape on XX. of 1994, and the Plaintiff sent 20 million won out of the remainder in the East GG, and the Plaintiff directly visited the account branch of the Seocho-gu Bank; and CCC received 30 million won from the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s FF office on x. of X. 195, and received 30 million won from the balance. In fact, the Plaintiff’s entry of the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff (Evidence 13) was confirmed to have been withdrawn from OOO, OO, OO, and witness receipt and witness receipt (Evidence 10G).

④ Since around X, around 1994, around X, around 1994, around 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○, which was around the time when the instant sales contract was concluded, the sales contract was concluded on the ○○○○○○○○○○ around X, around the same time as X., around 1994, and the market price seems to have been similar to the instant land.

⑤ Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff actually paid to CCC a total of KRW 765 million with the purchase price of the instant land, and received each of the above receipts as evidence for payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason. Since the judgment of the first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of this case shall be revoked