1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant bears the total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial modification as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

From 6th to 18th of the judgment of the first instance court, the following are changed.

【In a case where the grounds for objection are deemed justifiable in the course of the appeal procedure, and accordingly necessary disposition was rendered accordingly, in view of the purport of the Framework Act on National Taxes recognizing the objection system and the method of correction accordingly, it is not permissible to reverse the same matter without any special reason and make the same disposition as the previous one. Therefore, in a case where the tax authority ex officio cancels the taxation disposition by deeming the grounds for objection by the taxpayer in the procedure of filing an objection against the taxation disposition as justifiable, and without any special reason, such as the submission of false data by the taxpayer, it is unlawful to reverse the former taxation disposition even though there is no special reason such as ex officio revocation by the wrongful method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du18161, Jun. 24, 2010; 201Du1427, Jul. 24, 2014).

【The Seoul High Court Order 2013Ra1408, the Seoul High Court Order 2013Ra1408, the Seoul High Court Decision 23 December 23, 2013, the Seoul High Court’s written ruling dated April 17, 2014, and the National Land Tribunal’s certificate of planned land substitution, etc., as well as the documents attached thereto, found that the instant association’s expropriation of the instant land was written or that the urban development project of the instant association was conducted by the replotting method, as well as the documents attached thereto, were replaced from the 7th judgment of the first instance court to the 8th judgment.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are themselves.