The part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the corresponding part of the judgment, except for the part where the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion is added in the next paragraph.

The relevant part shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that this court had concluded to divide the transfer price of the factory, unregistered building and equipment of this case into KRW 800 million and wastewater right into KRW 400 million, notwithstanding the attached terms of the sales contract (the revised contract No. 3-1, hereinafter referred to as "the revised contract"), which was amended on March 25, 2008.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence and factual relations, it is justifiable to view that the transfer value of the instant factory and the unregistered building, which are subject to taxation, was differentiated according to the entry of the modified contract, which is a disposal document.

On a different premise, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

1) If it is recognized that the formation of a disposal document is genuine, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there is clear and acceptable ground to deny the content thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu96, Mar. 12, 1985). In the sales contract (Evidence A2) created for the first time between the Plaintiff and D party to the contract, the Plaintiff stated that all of the instant factory, unregistered buildings, facilities, and wastewater rights shall be sold at KRW 1.2 billion, but the fact that the instant factory was subdivided into KRW 80 million and the remainder containing the unregistered building is stated as KRW 400,000,000,000 in the modified contract on March 25, 2008 is apparent by the written contract itself.2) In light of the following factual relations, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is any content different from the above disposal document.

D after the completion of the modified contract.