(심리불속행) 대체주택 취득과정에서 부득이하게 3주택이 된 경우로 볼 수 있는지 여부[국승]
Seoul High Court 2010Nu17313 ( December 16, 2010)
Early High Court Decision 2009Du1963 (Law No. 24, 2009)
Whether it can be seen as a case where three houses have been inevitably formed in the course of acquiring a substitute house.
(C) In the process of acquiring a substitute house, it is difficult to reasonably explain the necessity, circumstances, etc. of the purchase of the house, although it is alleged that it has been inevitably three houses and is not subject to heavy taxation for one household.
2011Du846 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
○○ et al.
○ Head of tax office
The Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu17313 decided December 16, 2010
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the appellant's grounds of appeal fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by
Reference materials.
If the grounds of final appeal are not included in the grounds of final appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violations of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal does not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal, and refers to the system of dismissing final appeal by judgment without continuing to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal (see