beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications and additional decisions, thereby citing this case in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
수정하는 부분 ▣ 제1심 판결의 이유 중 판결문 제5쪽 3째줄부터 18째줄까지의 부분을 삭제한다.
In addition, the Plaintiff paid only KRW 560 million out of the purchase price to the KPP, and the sales contract with the KPP was terminated under personal circumstances without paying a balance.
However, the Plaintiff’s return of KRW 560 million from the SPP, and instead of paying a new purchase price to PPP, the Plaintiff was merely to receive the said KRW 560 million from PPP, in lieu of paying a new purchase price to PPPP.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not resell the instant land to C, the imposition of acquisition tax, etc. against the Plaintiff is unlawful.
As evidence consistent with the above argument, the Plaintiff submitted the evidence No. 3-1 [Written Answer submitted by Pungwon in the related lawsuit (the District Court Decision 2014Da43724)] and the evidence No. 3-2 [a sales contract prepared between C and Pungwon].
However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff rescinded the agreement on the sales contract before acquiring the instant land, based on the aforementioned documentary evidence, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts as seen earlier, Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2, witness D’s testimony and overall purport of pleading.
D and C asserted that “the instant land was transferred from the Plaintiff” in the aforementioned related litigation, and D appeared as a witness in the trial and held as a witness in the trial and held that “the Plaintiff was self-owned on the instant land, and was a Pung Institute.”
Accordingly, the plaintiff and the 950 million won sales contract are concluded.