1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On March 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C to sell 312,00,000 square meters of D forest land to C at Jeju-si (the down payment of KRW 35 million at the time of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 275 million on July 31, 2014), and the same year from C.

4.11.Written down payment 35 million won, and the same year.

7. Around 31.30,000 won was received.

On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant’s agent C and the Plaintiff’s agent to sell the said land to the Defendant at KRW 312,00,000 (the contract amounting to KRW 35 million, intermediate payment to KRW 20,000,000, and the remainder to KRW 257,000,00,000) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

On the other hand, C prepared a written confirmation to the Plaintiff on the same day that “the Defendant shall bear the capital gains tax pursuant to the above sales contract.”

On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff received a balance of KRW 257 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above land on November 13 of the same year.

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 96,349,350,000 for capital gains tax from the sale of the forest.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 7 (including each number in the case of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings agreed to impose capital gains tax on the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 96,349,350 won paid by the plaintiff instead.

Even if at the time of the instant sales contract, C did not have the right to make a special agreement on the burden of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff believed C to have the right to make a special agreement on the burden of capital gains tax, and there was justifiable reason to believe as such, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the capital gains tax to the Plaintiff in accordance with the representation doctrine under Article

The defendant's assertion is that the contract of this case imposes on the plaintiff.