소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts: “The judgment of the defendant’s assertion” in the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment; thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence
[Supplementary Use]
3. The defendant's assertion that "the plaintiff can obtain a building permit within one to two months at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, and if the building permit is delayed, he shall pay the balance within two months. Furthermore, the plaintiff made an oral promise that tax issues, such as the increase in capital gains tax derived from the delay in the payment of the balance, should be held responsible for all of them. Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay or compensate the defendant for the amount equivalent to KRW 15 million of capital gains tax additionally borne by the defendant as a result of the delay in the construction permit of this case and the increase in transfer tax rate of 10% during the pertinent period." The defendant's obligation to transfer ownership of this case's land is related to the plaintiff's obligation to pay the amount equivalent to the capital gains tax of this case and concurrent performance.
However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3-1, the defendant requested that the plaintiff bear the amount of KRW 20 million out of the taxes additionally borne by the increase in the transfer tax rate immediately after the construction permission for the land of this case was granted on June 21, 2016, but only the plaintiff was aware of the refusal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement on additional transfer income tax as asserted by the plaintiff between the parties.
Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that "the plaintiff arbitrarily forged the seal in the name of the defendant and applied for a building permit." However, the remaining payment date under the sales contract is stipulated as the date of the building permit, but it does not separately specify the subject of the application.