1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the statement of the reasons for the second or third or third part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion merely received KRW 50 million from the Defendant on October 12, 2002, by deceiving the Defendant that the purchase price of the instant land was KRW 450 million, and there was no distribution of profits on the premise that the purchase price was KRW 726 million. The Plaintiff did not participate at the time of conclusion of the sales contract or the receipt of the remainder of the purchase price, or did not have any fact that the G, the assignee of the instant land, took part in the sales contract at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract or receiving the remainder of the purchase price.

Nevertheless, at the time when the Defendant was subject to tax investigation in the East-gu Tax Office, four persons were present at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract and the receipt of the balance of the purchase price to be borne by the Defendant, and the remaining amount after deducting loans of KRW 300 million from the purchase price of the instant land of KRW 726 million was divided into equal profits among the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the D and C4, thereby imposing capital gains tax equivalent to KRW 84,652,600 on the Plaintiff by making a false statement.

The acquisition of the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff with the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland by the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes a title trust, and the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes a delegation contract under the Civil Act. The Defendant’s reporting of the purchase price of the instant land at KRW 400 million to the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff of the reduction of the purchase price of the instant land at KRW 40 million was illegal against the Plaintiff, or violated the mandatory’s duty of care at the time of termination and termination of delegation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff imposed capital gains tax of KRW 84,652,60 on the Plaintiff, and thereby, the Plaintiff was additionally charged KRW 5

Therefore, it is true.