beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. In the first instance court’s judgment, the Plaintiff sought revocation of “each disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 418,923,900, KRW 213,294, KRW 240, KRW 323,868,580, and KRW 134,05 of the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 418,923,90, KRW 294, KRW 240 for the year 2006, and KRW 323,868, and KRW 580 for the respective disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 418,923,90 for the Plaintiff on October 2, 2012, the court of the first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s remaining claim.”
Therefore, since only the Defendant appealed against the part against it, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the portion exceeding 134,051,805 won in the disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff on October 2, 2012, and the portion exceeding 177,978,175 won in the disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff in 2006, and the portion exceeding 213,294,240 won in the disposition imposing gift tax for 2006.
2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance [Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act], except for the case where the following parts are dried or added, the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. A portion used for adding or cutting;
A. The following is added to the part to be added between the 6th judgment of the first instance and the 3th judgment.
The defendant asserts to the effect that, even though the designation of the district for the national rental housing complex was made with respect to the land No. 1 in this case, the act of constructing a building in the district for the planned use with the permission of the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and it does not naturally be accepted since it was designated as the district for the planned use. Thus, it cannot be viewed that there existed any legal
However, this case.