양도소득세경정거부처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant shall bear the costs of the intervention in the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance added to the "written evidence Nos. 13 and 16" in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "written evidence Nos. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance" was issued to the "written evidence Nos. 16, 28-1 of the evidence No. 16, and part of the witness K of the court of first instance", and the "written evidence No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance" was issued to the following 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance.
In this context, the Intervenor transferred KRW 10,000,000 to H immediately after receiving down payment of KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff on August 3, 2010, and H did not take any measures even though H was aware of the Intervenor’s receipt of KRW 90,00,000 as the Intervenor’s agent and the receipt was prepared and issued, the Intervenor’s above KRW 90,00,000 is likely to have been received in relation to the acquisition of the land before the instant partition.
(4) The defendant and the intervenor asserted that the contract of this case was revoked under the contract of this case and that the contract of this case was newly concluded under the contract of this case, since the plaintiff did not pay any balance under the contract of this case.
However, as seen earlier, even though the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,00,000 to the Plaintiff on the agreed date under the first contract of this case, the content certification that the Intervenor sent to the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff did not pay the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff at the agreed date. The second contract of this case does not include any details concerning the return or settlement of the price already paid under the second contract of this case, and it does not include any details concerning the return or settlement of the price already paid under the second contract of this case. 440,000 as stated in the