1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are all revoked.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs sought revocation of each rejection disposition on the transfer income tax for the year 2007 and the transfer income tax for the year 2008, as stated in the purport of the claim. The first instance court dismissed the lawsuit on the part of the instant lawsuit in excess of KRW 182,971, the transfer income tax for the year 2007, and KRW 134,979, the transfer income tax for the year 2008, respectively, and revoked each request for revocation of correction disposition on the part of the instant lawsuit in excess of KRW 182,971, the transfer income tax for the year 2007, and KRW 134,979, the transfer income tax for the year 208.

The defendant only appealed against this, and the plaintiffs did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to each rejection disposition on the plaintiffs' transfer income tax of 182,971 won for the year 2007, and transfer income tax of 134,979 won for the year 2008.

2. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 15 to No. 4, No. 16). Thus, this Court shall refer to the reasons under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420

The part used in the amendment shall be referred to as " August 5, 2014" in the 4th 11th judgment of the first instance court as " July 29, 2014".

Article 14 of the Judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) states “The Plaintiff had gone through the procedure of the preceding trial” as “The Plaintiff requested the Tax Tribunal on October 14, 2014, but was dismissed on December 26, 2014.”

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the instant contract for the agreement between the plaintiffs' assertion and Jungcheon-si was cancelled by mistake, there was no legal act to transfer assets for consideration, and as it is impossible to return originals, it received money after deducting compensation received as unjust enrichment or damages, the compensation received at king was not received as compensation for the transfer of assets.

Therefore, the agreement of this case is concluded.