(심리불속행)부부가 경제적이익을 함께 향유한 것으로 보아 부부간 사업장 명의대여 주장을 부인함[국승]
Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-51914 ( October 07, 2016)
(C) deny the claim for the name change of a spouse's place of business, considering that the father's economic benefits together have been enjoyed by the father.
(C) In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view that the other spouse did not participate in the business operation of the place of business on the sole basis of the fact that one spouse was subject to criminal punishment due to criminal facts in the place of business.
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2016du571 global income and revocation of such disposition
OO
O Head of tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu31946 Decided October 7, 2016
January 18, 2017
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
All of the judgment below and the appellate brief examined the records of this case, but the appellant's grounds of appeal are not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal, or are recognized to be groundless. Thus, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of