beta
red_flag_2(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 5. 18. 선고 2011누35509 판결

[양도소득세환급거부결정취소][미간행]

Plaintiff and appellant

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant, Appellant

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

The first instance judgment

Incheon District Court Decision 2011Guhap1249 Decided September 29, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

March 30, 2012

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's refusal to refund KRW 27,046,747 out of KRW 50,794,228 of the transfer income tax belonging to the plaintiff on July 30, 209 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: “The objective value of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “attention of the residence” is “attention of the residence.” The first instance court’s second instance judgment (“Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu19282, Feb. 14, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6700, Jun. 14, 2007”; and the first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “contention of the purchase value” or “acquisition tax, registration tax, or other incidental expenses” under Article 89 subparag. 1 or 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act’s second instance judgment’s lack of evidence to acknowledge the transfer of assets in question.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)