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 judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, thereby citing it pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

5 at the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

[Attachment Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act provides that the date of liquidation of the price shall be deemed the date of transfer in cases where it is clear that the date of liquidation of the price is the date of transfer. The "the date of settlement of the price" under the above provision refers to the date of actual payment of the price, not the date of the payment of the remaining price stipulated in the sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1223, Apr. 28, 1992). Even if a sales contract was concluded, it shall not be deemed that the transfer under the Income Tax Act has been made unless the price is fully paid (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4980, Mar. 23, 1993). Even if considering the above circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the time of transfer of the house of this case is September 8, 2016, the date of settlement of the remaining price, and it shall be determined based on whether the requirements stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of this case was met).

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.