1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On December 12, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant from the Defendant for KRW 347.5 million, and sold the said real estate to a third party on August 9, 2016, and filed a transfer income tax on the premise of the said purchase price.

However, at the time of 2006, the tax authorities found that the Defendant reported the real estate purchase price less (277,6540,000 won) and that the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax in 2016, and imposed the transfer income tax equivalent to the omitted portion additionally.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the truth of the sales contract in order to obtain confirmation that the sales price in the year 2006 sales contract is KRW 347.5 million.

2. Determination

A. A lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of a legal doctrine is a lawsuit to confirm whether a document was forged or altered, unless it was prepared by the person in whose name the document was prepared, and thus, an independent lawsuit is allowed for confirmation of the fact, such as such a document, by the reason that the authenticity of the document verifying the legal relationship becomes final and conclusive by a judgment, the dispute itself concerning the legal relationship that the document is likely to be resolved or at least to contribute to the resolution of the dispute, as a result of no dispute between the parties.

In addition, in the lawsuit of confirmation, the confirmation of the legal relationship is required to be immediately determined by the confirmation judgment between the plaintiff and the defendant in order to eliminate the risks or apprehensions existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status according to the legal relationship. In addition, there is a benefit of confirmation that it becomes the most appropriate means.

Supreme Court Decision 91Da15317 delivered on December 10, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 91Da15317 delivered on November 8, 1994