1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant at the first instance trial. The court of the first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 11, 2012 that “the Defendant’s remaining claims exceed KRW 438,162,530, acquisition tax, special rural development tax for rural development tax for 43,81,860, registration tax for 436,106,980, local education tax for 87,218,280, acquisition tax for 14,780,620, special rural development tax for rural development tax for 12,716,60, local education tax for 2,543,320, acquisition tax for 2010, acquisition tax for the Plaintiff is revoked.”

As a result, only the Defendant filed an appeal against this issue, this Court’s judgment is limited to the portion against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance, namely, the portion against which the Defendant lost in the judgment of the first instance, namely, KRW 438,162,530, acquisition tax for the Plaintiff on October 11, 2012; KRW 43,81,860, registration tax for the special rural development tax; KRW 436,106,980, registration tax for the special rural development tax; KRW 87,218,280, acquisition tax for the imposition of KRW 14,780,620, special rural development tax; KRW 1,478,050, registration tax for the special rural development tax; KRW 12,716,60, local education tax; and KRW 2,543,320 (hereinafter “the portion subject to imposition against the Defendant”).

2. The reasons for this decision concerning the details of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the part of the disposition of this case against the defendant is legitimate

A. The part of the land related to the golf course of this case, which was classified into the golf course account by the Defendant’s assertion as the omitted tax base amount of acquisition tax and registration tax of the golf course of this case, and the part of the land created through the golf course of this case classified into the golf course account (including 9 cases, such as parking lots, cart roads, lakes, bridges, wetlands, and the access roads to tugboat storage) and the golf course of this case, which was originally reported by the Plaintiff,