(심리불속행) 배우자 명의 주택의 실질소유자가 따로 있다는 주장을 받아들이기 어려움[국승]
Seoul High Court 2012Nu3592 ( October 12, 2012)
Cho High Court Decision 2010Du3475 (Law No. 19, 2011)
(C) It is difficult to accept the allegation that there is a separate owner of a house under one’s name.
(C) A house owned by a spouse under the name of the spouse at the time of the transfer of a house is not subject to a transfer of a house, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the purchase price was paid, and that the ownership transfer registration was not made even after the transfer of a house is not possible. Therefore, the house owned by a spouse at the time of the transfer of a house constitutes two houses
2012du24368 Disposition of revocation of capital gains tax imposition
KimA
Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu3592 Decided October 12, 2012
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Although all of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the appellate brief were examined, and the appellant's grounds of appeal are not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal or are recognized to be groundless, and the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per
Reference materials.
If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final