1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff addss the determination of a new argument that was made at the court of first instance, thereby citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, "excess appropriation" in Part 3 of the first instance court's decision in Part 17 shall be deemed to be "excess appropriation of excessive amount", and in the last action in Part 8, "B" shall be deemed to be "B".

B. No. 1) Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance added the following parts to the part “(s) (i.e., the part(s) (i., the real estate in this case).” Although the instant house has been partially damaged as a residential building due to a short leaflet from 2003 to 2008, it is temporary and it is reasonable to deem that the instant house has continuously maintained its potential function as a residential building for the above period in light of the fact that it has been used as a normal residential building from 2013 to 30 years through repairs without any relatively excessive cost, and (ii) the Plaintiff compared the value at the time of acquiring the instant house (i.e., the appraised value of KRW 17 million to KRW 20 million) and the cost required for repair (i.e., the value of the instant house was KRW 17 million to KRW 20 million, but the Income Tax Act has lost its function as a residential building, as seen earlier, whether it constitutes a residential building under Article 281(2) of the former Building.