beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s refusal to rectify KRW 7,557,353 of the transfer income tax attributed to the Plaintiff in 2007 on July 23, 2014.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff owned (which was owned by the Plaintiff and B, but the Plaintiff inherited the Plaintiff’s right solely due to the death on January 29, 2008) and the 11m2, D forest and fields (hereinafter in succession, “instant land 1”, “the instant land 2”, and “the instant land”, and “the instant land”) were located in a natural green area, which is a development-restricted zone, but the designation of a development-restricted zone was revoked on May 30, 2005, and the instant land was changed to a Class-I general residential area.
B. Since then, as the key land of this case was incorporated into the E zone in Jungcheon-si, the Plaintiff had a consultation on compensation pursuant to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (i.e., KRW 59,79,960 on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (i.e., KRW 4,766,650 on the land of this case) entered into a contract to sell the key land of this case (i.e., KRW 55,03,310 on the contract to sell the land of this case) and reported and paid KRW 7,557,335 on Oct. 23, 2007 to the Defendant for the registration of ownership transfer on the key land of this case on October 23, 2007.
(However, it was actually reported and paid KRW 7,888,671 as it included excessive F in addition to the land at issue of this case.
The Plaintiff assessed land value based on the conditions before the cancellation of development restriction zones and alteration of purpose of use in calculating the amount of compensation for the instant land. The Plaintiff asserted that the method of calculating the amount of compensation for the instant land was excessive, or there was an error in the value of the Plaintiff’s compensation, and asserted that the instant contract for the consultation and sales was revoked, and raised against Sucheon-si, Suwon District Court No. 2009Gahap5259 (1) and sought restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the difference between legitimate compensation and the existing compensation, and (2) it is possible to recover the amount of compensation.