The burden of proving that the contract has been concluded in an amount different from the estimated contract amount reported according to Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

If a party who has reported a contract for land, etc. in accordance with the provisions of Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory concludes a contract without any change, the contract shall be presumed to have been concluded in accordance with the reported content unless there are special circumstances, such as the fact that the contract amount was erroneously entered at the time of the report, the reason why the predetermined amount could not be entered differently from the agreed amount, or that the contract was concluded in an amount different from the predetermined amount due to the price fluctuation, etc. between the transaction report date and the actual transaction date, etc.

Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu4989 delivered on September 19, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

If a party who reported a contract for land, etc. in accordance with the provisions of Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory enters into a contract without any change, the contract shall be presumed to have been concluded in accordance with the reported content, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the contract amount was erroneously entered at the time of the report or the amount was different from the agreed upon, or that there was a need to newly set the price between the date of transaction report and the date of actual transaction due to the price fluctuation, etc., and the contract was entered into in an amount different from the estimated amount, and such special circumstances shall be proved by the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu115

The court below's decision on this case as the same view is correct and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

The appeal is dismissed without any reason. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)