The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court: ① Aa is the decedent of the Plaintiff on February 18, 2003

c (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) sell and sell to c(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) the land of this case in KRW 2.750 million and

The gold entered into the instant contract with the deceased on April 1, 2003. On April 3, 2003, it concluded the instant contract with the content that the deceased would terminate the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer and receive KRW 4.1 billion from Aaa on April 3, 2008.

The next court below held that ① the deceased’s construction permit for the instant land immediately after the instant sales contract was concluded.

A. A. Aa. On the land of this case, the property of this case was created as a collateral against the deceased’s obligor.

The registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under the name of the reporter and the deceased was completed, and in the case of the instant contract

Aa receives from the Deceased KRW 2.75 billion, the purchase price of which under the instant sales contract, 2.75 billion.

In light of the fact that it appears on the premise that the deceased acquired the land of this case on or around April 1, 2003, the deceased may be deemed to have acquired the land of this case, and ② The core content of the contract of this case is aa to the deceased.

In addition, 4.1 billion won shall be paid and the deceased shall cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in his name.

In other words, the instant sales contract was not concluded to return to the same state as the instant sales contract was not concluded.

as a face-to-face A, the initial purchase price of KRW 2.75 billion, plus KRW 1.35 billion, the initial purchase price of KRW 41.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that there was no clear reason to pay the cost of detention aaa

It was reasonable to see that the instant land was re-purchasing from the person.

B. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, such judgment of the court below is just and it is so decided.

The law on the burden of proof of taxation requirements or the termination of agreement, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

No errors such as misunderstanding objections have been made.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's reasons

the deceased does not register the transfer of ownership in his name on the land of this case.

It is just to determine that there were no circumstances, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

Legal principles on inevitable circumstances, etc. that are excluded from transfer assets subject to excessive transfer income tax;

There was no misunderstanding of the facts.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) re-sale the land of this case by the deceased;

may be deemed to have concealed Do transactions and have not reported the capital gains tax base accordingly.

On the ground that the imposition of the unfair non-reported penalty tax in this case was lawful.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, such judgment of the court below is just and there is a ground for appeal.

As alleged in the grounds, there was no error by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the unfair non-declaration penalty tax.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is decided by all participating Justices.

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.