All appeals by the plaintiffs against the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

The reasons why the court should explain this case is identical to the part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, except for the determination as to the plaintiffs' additional arguments as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, this court shall accept this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(1) The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiffs, excluding the following additional determination, do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and it is justifiable to find facts in the first instance court and make a decision by viewing the evidence submitted additionally by this court). The main point of the Plaintiffs’ claim as to the realization of income to be assessed on the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the contract between the instant building owner and the Plaintiffs on the creation of land and the construction of a new building is not yet finalized, and thus, it cannot be deemed

Judgment

The Income Tax Act adopts the so-called principle of confirmation of the right to taxable income by deeming the income as realizing the income in a case where the right that is the cause of the income has not been actually income, and adopts the so-called principle of confirmation of the right to taxable income by deeming the income as realizing the income in a case where the claim that is the cause of the income is not recoverable due to the debtor's bankruptcy, etc. and it is objectively evident that the income has no possibility of realizing the future income in a case where the claim that is the cause of the income subject to taxation becomes impossible

However, in such a case, it should be clearly stated that the taxpayer has no income to be taxed by asserting such circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du11874 Decided January 14, 2010). According to the respective entries and arguments set forth in Articles 3 through 21 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the instant building owner and the Plaintiffs around July 2014.