All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The acquisition tax is not imposed by taking advantage of the profits that a purchaser can obtain by disposing of goods in the form of a kind of distribution tax, on which the fact that it is the transfer of goods by itself is the transfer of goods, and on which the purchaser recognizes and imposes a tax-bearing capacity.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du49696, Jun. 8, 2017). As such, since real estate acquisition tax is a taxation object for the acquisition of real estate, a taxation claim thereon is an acquisition object.

As a matter of course, the existence of a fact occurs, and as long as lawfully acquired, the contract was terminated after the conclusion, or becomes retroactively invalidated by the fulfillment of the conditions of rescission or by the exercise of the right of rescission.

This does not affect the exercise of a tax claim already established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Du6651 delivered on April 10, 2001, etc.). In light of the nature, nature, etc. of acquisition tax, the condition stipulated in a sales contract was fulfilled after the completion of registration of ownership transfer under a sales contract, thereby reducing the price.

Even if a legitimate acquisition act exists based on the initial acquisition value, such cause cannot affect the exercise of a taxation claim established based on the tax base as at the time of the acquisition act, barring any special circumstance. Accordingly, a request for ordinary correction under Article 51(1)1 of the former Framework Act on Local Taxes (amended by Act No. 13293, May 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) or a request for subsequent correction under Article 51(2)3 of the same Act, Article 30 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Local Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27958, Mar. 27, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) cannot be filed solely on the ground as above.

2.(a)

Comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs purchased each apartment of this case, and then the apartment supply contract and the payment certificate of the purchase price.