2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The court's reasoning concerning this case is that the part of "2.c. judgment on December 28, 2009, the second 14th 14th e.g., the second e., the second e., December 24, 2009, and the third 14th e.g., the fifth e., the fifth e., the fifth e., the fifth e., the fifth e., the fifth e.g. judgment" is the same as the part on the grounds for the judgment of the first e.g., the court., under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation

◆ 다시쓰는부분

"C. Determination"

1) First, the Intervenor sold the instant land to the Plaintiff on June 21, 2001 and completed the registration of transfer under the Plaintiff’s name as of June 21, 2001, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 on May 28, 2001 to the Intervenor, who is the transferor, and thereafter, paid KRW 00 on June 20, 200 to the Intervenor, there is no dispute.

2) Furthermore, on June 20, 2001, the Plaintiff presented a sales contract (No. 1-1, hereinafter referred to as "the first contract"), the purchase price of which is KRW 000, and on June 20, 2001, based on the withdrawal of KRW 000,000 from the Plaintiff's account under the Plaintiff's name. On June 20, 2001, the Plaintiff asserted that on June 20, the Plaintiff paid KRW 700, a cashier's checks of KRW 00, a cash amount of KRW 700, and a cash amount of KRW 00,000, in addition to the cashier's checks of KRW 00. On the other hand, the Intervenor sold the instant land at KRW 00 and received a cash amount of KRW 00,000, a cash amount of KRW 00,000, a balance with the down payment of KRW 00,000.

A) First, while the first contract in which the purchase price was written in KRW 000 and the second contract in which the purchase price was written in KRW 000 and the second contract in which the sale price was written in KRW 000 (hereinafter “the second contract”), both the Plaintiff and the Intervenor do not raise any objection to the authenticity of the first and the second contract. However, with respect to the process of the preparation, the Plaintiff asserted that the second contract is a false contract made in the last time at the request of the Intervenor, while the first contract is a false contract made at the request of the Plaintiff at the time of the contract, and the second contract written at the certified judicial scrivener office on the date of receipt of the balance is a genuine contract. Unless any other direct evidence is presented in this circumstance, the first and second contract cannot be a basis for determining the sale price of the land in this case transacted between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

In addition, the witness of the first instance court testified to the effect that the remaining AA was present at the time of concluding a sales contract on the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and that the agreed sales amount was 000 won or more, but the Plaintiff and South AA testified to the effect that the Plaintiff was a pro-friendly party, and that the Plaintiff was not at all asserting the existence of South AA, a witness favorable to himself/herself, and that the Intervenor was admitted as a witness following the Intervenor’s statement that the Plaintiff was a witness in the course of his/her questioning.

B) Ultimately, since there is no direct evidence to know the sales price of the land of this case, each assertion and the credibility of the statement should be observed. In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not consistent with the evidence and it is difficult to believe that the Intervenor’s statement is inconsistent with the evidence, while the Intervenor’s statement is not persuasive, the sales price of the land of this case cannot be determined as KRW 00, as stated by the Intervenor.

(1) First, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion.

The Plaintiff asserted that he paid KRW 000 as the purchase price, but did not present receipts or transfers to support the payment. Rather, the Plaintiff reported acquisition tax and registration tax to KRW 000.

In addition, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid 70 won's cashier's checks to the intervenors on June 20, 2001, but according to the statement of the issuance of 000 won's cashier's checks at the designated date of Korea Light Bank's Incheon Bank's Incheon Bank's Incheon Branch on June 20, 201, the plaintiff's bank issued 70 won's cashier's checks at the above branch on June 20, 2001, and on the same day, there are only two 00 won's cashier's checks and one 00 won's cashier's checks based on the plaintiff's account on the same day (the payer was unable to verify his personal information due to the expiration of the period of preservation of financial transaction records, and only the payment date was confirmed on June 22, 201 and June 23, 2001).

In addition, the plaintiff asserted that he temporarily withdrawn 00 won in cash and paid 000 won in cash at the time of the initial tax investigation, but the plaintiff argued that 00 won in cash was paid in cash at the time of the withdrawal of 00 won in check (one 1:00 won check in front of 00 won, two 1:32:35 on June 20, 2001) (one 1:00 won cashier's check check) and 4 hours later than that of the check (one :11:32:35 on June 20, 2001).

As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not consistent with the evidence, but is not consistent with the new evidence whenever there is a new evidence, and it is difficult to trust it.

(2) Meanwhile, the intervenor stated that on June 20, 201, the intervenor paid 00 won a loan of 00 won and 000 won interest on the land of this case in cash held separately by the intervenor separate from Chapter 1 of the cashier's cashier's cashier's cashier's checks that he consistently received. The intervenor's payment of 00 won was made on June 20, 2001 when the intervenor paid 13:46, June 2001 when the intervenor paid 00 won and 000 won of cashier's checks was presented on June 22, 2001 and June 23, 2001, when the plaintiff's cash withdrawal was more than 20 hours after the above payment, the intervenor's claim that the plaintiff paid 100 won of checks and 00 won was not used at the time of operation of the intervenor's payment of the loan of this case, and the intervenor's claim that the plaintiff's payment of 200 won was not made.

(3) As to the circumstances leading to the sale and purchase of the land of this case, the intervenor consistently held that when the above leased real estate was forced to collect the deposit and the premium, the auction was inevitably made to collect the deposit and the premium, and that the land prior to the division was sold out by the above credit union because it is difficult for the intervenor to bear the interest cost, and that the land of this case was sold out by dividing it out of the part of this case, because it is difficult for the intervenor to recover the interest cost. In light of the fact that the intervenor sold the remaining part of the land of this case (the area of the land of this case is larger than the land of this case) and the total floor area of the above building (492.84mmmm2) to other 00 won, the intervenor's assertion seems to be persuasive, while the plaintiff's assertion was not only higher than the above amount of KRW 00,000, but also at least 300m2 after the sale of the land of this case.

3) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.