양도소득세부과처분취소
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 for the court's explanation concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows: "The acquisition of ownership by trade on June 9, 1978 shall be purchased on June 8, 1978 and shall complete the registration of ownership transfer on the following day and shall complete the registration of ownership transfer on the following day," and it shall be limited to "4 under the 8th page". Further, a sales contract made between the plaintiff and the police mutual aid association may be changed to the purchaser's name to a person designated by the police mutual aid association before the remainder of payment upon the request and notification of the police mutual aid association (Article 10 (1)), and "as the same applies to the right of the court of first instance, the association of this case may not purchase land from its union members from the beginning on June 9, 1978," and the main sentence of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 40 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the part of the judgment of the first instance.
(1) The plaintiff argues that the land of this case is not a mere designation of an urban development zone and the public announcement of a detailed list of implementation plans for an urban development project, and thus the possibility of changing its form and quality is entirely obstructed by granting a project implementer an exclusive development right, such as the right to expropriate and use, etc. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable as it is merely an independent opinion, as long as the implementation plan for an urban development project is authorized and the public announcement of a detailed list is not a valid effect of prohibiting or restricting the continued use of the land as farmland for its original purpose, even if it is not deemed that the plaintiff has an effect of prohibiting or restricting the continued use of the land as farmland for its original purpose.