1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax on June 5, 2015 reverted to Plaintiff A for the year 2009, 302,670.

1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning for this part is identical to the entry of “the reason for the disposition” in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The reasoning for this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the court of first instance stated "the plaintiff's assertion" under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. Determination 1) The transfer income tax is imposed on the premise that the transfer of assets and the income accrued therefrom accrue. If the sales contract was rescinded by agreement, the effect of the sales contract would be lost and the transfer of assets would not be carried out (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu944, Dec. 22, 1992). Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was the transfer of assets, which are taxation requirements of the transfer income tax, first of all, as to whether the agreement has been rescinded after the exchange contract in this case.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence Nos. 4 through 19, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the witness G, H, and I’s testimony, and the written request for taxation information on the tax affairs of the Party concerned, which can be seen as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and G to cancel the instant exchange contract after the exchange contract of the instant case.

① On June 30, 2010, G agreed to receive KRW 441 million from the Plaintiffs in lieu of excluding 'Gwanju Real Estate from exchange subject to exchange’ and set up a mortgage on December 1, 2009 on Gwangju Real Estate. By September 30, 2010, G did not succeed to the obligations of the agricultural cooperatives with respect to Busan Real Estate and did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership against the Plaintiffs until the end of October 2010.