1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to Chapter 8, Chapter 14, the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On July 1, 2010, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was the managing body of the instant construction by June 1, 201, which was the tax base date following the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the instant contract, and that the construction of the secondary building, which was simultaneously developed, was resumed on March 5, 201, before June 1, 201, which was the tax base date, was excluded from the aggregate aggregate. Since there was no de facto obstacle to the resumption of the instant construction, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for the suspension of construction of the instant building for more than six months.

In full view of the evidence as mentioned above and the purport of evidence evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 4 and the whole argument, the plaintiff decided to sell all the land No. 1 and No. 2 in a lump sum, but after obtaining approval from the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, if the circumstance does not take place, the plaintiff sold the land No. 1 in a lump sum, and the construction of this case was reported for commencement as the owner of the building. The plaintiff reached a final agreement at the end of several times to adjust the funds invested in the construction of the building No. 1 after the sales contract of this case and the cancellation of the contract. The plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff conducted a series of sales negotiations with large-scale construction consortium and Samsung C&T consortium and Samsung C&T consortium, reflecting development gains in addition to the land price, and according to these facts, the plaintiff sold the land No. 1 in a position after the sale of the land to the owner of the building.