양도소득세부과처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax attributed to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014 1,035,929.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "The invalidation" of the second to third to the third to the second to the second to the third to the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be subject to capital gains tax, and the third to third to fifth to the third to fifth to the fifth to the third to fifth to the third to the third to fourth to the second to the second to the second to the second to the third to the third to the second to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the second to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the third to the second to the second to the second to the judgment.
A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sold the instant land as well as the public interest axis in the relevant civil procedure against F, as seen earlier, in view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments as to the allegation that the purchase of the instant land and the construction permit thereof was merely a sale of the instant land, and further, in the process of entering into a contract with F, the Plaintiff asserted that the land without the construction permit was KRW 1.2 million per square year and the land with the construction permit was decided as KRW 2 million per square year, taking into account the circumstances that the amount of KRW 2 million per square year, ② F also argued that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and the construction permit thereof in order to use the said land as the store for the household's storage in the relevant civil procedure, and ③ the sales contract between the Plaintiff and F was stated as the object of the sales contract, as well as the instant land as seen earlier.