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.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgments are added. Thus, this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In calculating gains on transfer of assets, Article 98 of the Income Tax Act provides that when calculating gains on transfer of assets, the time of acquisition and transfer shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the assets except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where the date of liquidation is unclear.

In the case of this case, considering all the above circumstances, such as the fact that B's right to cancel the contract is excluded under the pre-contract for sale and purchase, and the fact that the Plaintiff's office of November 30, 1984 agreement on the completion of sale and purchase was discovered, it is reasonable to view the date of settlement of the price of the real estate in this case as November 1984.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which the Plaintiff deemed to have held title trust to B after acquiring the real estate of this case around November 1984, is justifiable and there is no error in matters of law.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.