1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) except for the addition of the judgment as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or re-emphasized in this court; and (b) such addition is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Of the 4,112 square meters prior to Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant land”), 33/5,744 shares were owned by the Plaintiff’s wife, not the Plaintiff, from around 1984, and the compensation therefor was also received by C.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff deemed as the actual owner of the instant land is unreasonable.

B. However, the judgment of the court of first instance, based on the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, was based on the following circumstances: (a) the owner of 123 households (one of the 137 households) Bara 123 households (one of the 137 households), in relation to the construction of Bara, etc., was compensated for damages, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares as the owner of Bara 41 at the time; and (b) the instant land was registered in the name of BBara Dora 41; (c) at the time, the Plaintiff received a written confirmation of the share of the right to the instant land in the name of C; and (d) thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Bara Dora Dora self-Governing Administration Committee in relation to the compensation for expropriation of the instant land; and (e) the Plaintiff actually owned the instant land with the instant land shares as the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, was exempt from the capital gains tax on the instant land transfer.