beta
(영문) 대법원 2011. 04. 28. 선고 2011두2224 판결

(심리불속행) 아파트가 대물변제 되었다 하더라도 필요경비에 산입할 수 없음[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul High Court 2010Nu22858 ( December 16, 2010)

Case Number of the previous trial

Early High Court Decision 2009Du2831 (Law No. 26, 2009)

Title

(Resceptive Conduct) Even if an apartment is paid in kind, it shall not be included in necessary expenses.

Summary

(W) Even if the Plaintiff, who runs the housing construction and sales business, newly built an apartment and paid for construction expenses, such apartment shall not be included in the necessary expenses.

Cases

2011Du224 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

Plaintiff-Appellant

Ma-○

Defendant-Appellee

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu22858 Decided December 16, 2010

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Although all of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, the argument on the grounds of appeal by the appellant falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

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 violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of trial without continuing the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal, and refers to the system of dismissal of final appeal by judgment without continuing the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal (see this case, e.g.,