(영문) 대전고등법원 2012. 09. 20. 선고 2012누1226 판결채무를 대위변제한 것이 아니라 중첩적으로 인수 또는 계약 인수한 것으로 볼 수 없음[국승]
Daejeon District Court 201Guhap3960 ( October 23, 2012)
Cho Jae-chul2010 Before 3965 ( October 30, 2011)
It shall not be deemed that he/she has received or has received the contract in a double manner, unless he/she paid the debt by subrogation.
(As in the judgment of the court of first instance), it is alleged that the debtor has acquired the loan or the contract in duplicate, not by subrogation. However, there is no evidence to prove that the debtor has acquired the loan or the interest by subrogation on May 30, 2007, and newly concluded the loan or the loan for consumption by subrogation.
2012Nu1226 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition
XX Co., Ltd
The Director of the National Tax Service
Daejeon District Court Decision 201Guhap3960 Decided May 23, 2012
September 6, 2012
September 20, 2012
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of KRW 000,000, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on September 6, 2010, shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's explanation on this case is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a partial change of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420
◆ 제1심 판결 제3쪽 10, 11행의 『체결하였는바, 그 주요 내용』 을 『체결하면서 각 계약 무렵 이 사건 토지에 관하여 원고 명의로 된 채권최고액 000원 및 000원 의 각 근저당권을 설정하였는바, 그 금전소비대차계약의 주요 내용』 으로 변경.
◆ 제1심 판결 제4쪽 1, 2행을 다음과 같이 변경.
【2) On May 30, 2007, the Plaintiff drafted two copies of the loan certificate stating the following contents between XX. On May 31, 2007, the following day, the registration of preservation of ownership of the building on the ground of this case, the owner of which is XX, was completed on May 31, 2007, and on the same day, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the above building was completed at KRW 000 of the maximum debt amount in the Plaintiff’s name, the debtor’s OO.
◆ 제1심 판결 제5쪽 3행의 『제출한 점』 부터 7행까지를 다음과 같이 변경.
In light of the fact that “The debtor of the right to collateral security on the above building and the right to collateral security on the building was submitted as OO, but the owner of the building was obliged to pay the above obligation, and the liability for the above obligation was ultimately reserved to XX, and that the debtor is not sufficient to take over various circumstances supporting that the above obligation of O was already paid due to the lack of funds, the O transferred the right to the instant land and the building on the ground of the lack of funds to XX, and the O acquired the above right by the method of changing the existing obligation by borrowing new funds from the plaintiff, and then, during that process, the plaintiff was deemed to have entered into a new monetary loan contract with O on May 30, 2007, with the payment of the loan and interest on the plaintiff of O, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that O had taken over the obligation of O on the part of the plaintiff of O, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge that O had taken over the obligation of O on the part of the plaintiff of O.”
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.