종합소득세등부과처분취소
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of this court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which changed and changed as stated in the following 2. of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which reads that “the part seeking the revocation of the notice of change in the amount of income in the lawsuit of this case, is unlawful” in Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 5 is deleted from “the part seeking the revocation of the notice of change in the amount of income.”
Part 10 of the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, "3.... defense before the merits of the defendant Gangnam-gu Tax Office's main defense to "2...... defense before the merits of the defendant Gangnam-gu Tax Office's main defense".
Following the first instance court’s judgment No. 15 of the first instance court’s first instance judgment, “It is recognized that a person may seek revocation without being neglected” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du1557, Sept. 26, 200; 2012Du20618, Dec. 11, 2014).
In Part 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "4. The legality of the disposition of this case" was examined as "3. The legality of the disposition of this case".
No. 10 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court (see, e.g., evidence 15 of the first instance judgment) shall be added to “(see, e.g., evidence 15 of the first instance judgment)”.
The part of the 17th judgment of the first instance court that "the plaintiff company shall not be recognized" in the 11th judgment to "the 17th judgment of the first instance court" shall be as follows:
"The plaintiff company's presentation of each of the above data does not comply with other data or contains any question about its accuracy. However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 16 and 20, the plaintiff company has prepared a daily closing report for each of the above data and entered the inventory, the date and time of supply, the route of supply, the kind of oil supply, and the quantity in the daily unit, and has been managed electronically.