취득세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a decision on the additional assertion in the court of first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Additional determination
A. In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant asserted that the value of the asset invested in kind exceeds 30% of the total value of the Plaintiff’s business assets at the time of the commencement of the Plaintiff’s business based on the financial statements as of December 31, 2012, on the premise that the time of commencement of the business was the year 2013. The Defendant’s calculation method was erroneous because it was arbitrarily deducted the total value of the business assets at the time of the commencement of the business, and when the Defendant came to know of such errors in the process of the first instance trial, it was against the principle of the speech and statement as it was in violation of the first instance disposition.
B. The defendant, based on the financial statements as of December 31, 2012, asserted that the assets invested in kind exceed 30% of the total value of the business assets at the time of the commencement of the plaintiff's business based on the financial statements as of December 31, 2012, the plaintiff's assertion that the assets invested in kind exceed 30% of the total value of the business assets at the time of the commencement of the plaintiff's business cannot be deemed as the premise that the time of commencement of the business is after 2013.
In addition, the fact that the value of the asset invested in kind is less than 30% of the total value of the business property at the time of commencement of the
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that the plaintiff has the burden of proof as to the case, and that the plaintiff can be deemed to have commenced the business on January 2, 2012.