양도소득세등부과처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
The purport of the claim, appeal and this Court.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant as to the defendant's additional argument in the appellate trial under paragraph (2) below, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 2, 5 through 16, 3, 16 through 9,
In the latter part of the Decision of the court of first instance, the part of the Decision of the court of first instance changed the "24,973,240 won of the resident tax to be imposed and notified individually (hereinafter "the disposition imposing the transfer income tax of this case" and "disposition imposing the local income tax of this case") of the "2, 10 and 11 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8864, Feb. 29, 2008)" into the "disposition imposing and notifying the transfer income tax of this case" (hereinafter "disposition imposing the transfer income tax of this case").
In the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "each of the above dispositions" in the second part shall be changed to "the disposition of this case".
The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is replaced by the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance with the "3."
Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court is replaced by the "members" of the 21st "members".
On June 13, 2006, the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s additional argument regarding the appellate trial: (a) the Plaintiff did not cancel the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate or change the debtor, and rather, the Plaintiff was created with the debtor; (b) on November 23, 2007, the Plaintiff cancelled the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate and completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the trust; (c) the instant agreement is an incomplete contract without any mentioning the necessary matters stipulated in Articles 6 and 7; and (d) the land subject to investment is an incomplete contract without any mentioning the method of handling the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate.