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 reasons why the court of first instance should explain are as follows: (a) except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in particular in this court, or re-exploited, the reasons why the court of first instance should accept it pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the actual owner of the apartment in this case is C, the actual owner of the apartment in this case, and that the plaintiff is not a title trust with C.

However, according to Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction, which is subject to taxation, is nominal, and there is a separate person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable for tax payment. However, the following circumstances, namely, the apartment of this case, which are acknowledged in full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, were led by the plaintiff as the owner of the apartment of this case, and the exercise of rights and obligations as the owner of the apartment of this case, including the raising of purchase fund, payment of purchase price, payment of interest on security loans, payment of interest on lease loans, management of lease, etc. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the money or sale price that the apartment of this case was leased as security, directly reverted to the

It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s additional evidence Nos. 6 through 15 submitted at the trial room is different from the above recognition even if examining all evidence Nos. 6 through 15. In the end, the instant disposition of acquisition tax is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion to the same effect is

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.