beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 43,771.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 198 square meters for the general steel structure and the 198 square meters for the first floor of Class 2 neighborhood living facilities on the ground of the general steel structure and the other ground-based collective living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) with the Defendant for KRW 320 million.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.
The Defendant paid KRW 3,215,910 ( KRW 2,924,360 of the transfer income tax) as tax on April 29, 2015, and KRW 291,55,550 of the local income tax on November 11, 2016 ( KRW 21,965,240 of the increased additional charges, KRW 21,965,240 of the increased additional charges, and KRW 16,590,060 of the general charges). On March 26, 2017, the Defendant was imposed KRW 2,00,000 of the administrative fine for the violation of the refund of development gains.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 9 and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that according to the instant sales contract, the Defendant did not charge the Plaintiff various taxes, etc. imposed on the instant land and building, even if such an agreement was made, the development charges imposed on the instant land cannot be borne by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant asserted that even though the said agreement was null and void, the Defendant did not properly dispute the disposition of imposition of the development charges, and the Plaintiff asserted that there was no obligation to be paid under the instant sales contract, and filed a claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation with the principal lawsuit, asserting that there was no obligation to be paid to the Defendant under the instant sales contract. 2) On the contrary, the Defendant again purchased the instant land from the Defendant, and filed a claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation to be paid to the Defendant.