이 사건 관련소송의 당사자가 복수인 경우에는 그 변호사 선임료는 특단의 사정이 없는 한 당사자 수로 균등하게 나누어 부담해야함[국패]
Busan District Court 2012Guhap6217 (Law No. 18, 2013)
Cheongbu 201bu 1075 (24. 2012.09)
Where the parties to the instant lawsuit are multiple parties, the attorney fee shall be divided equally into the number of the parties, barring special circumstances.
(1) In light of the fact that the pertinent lawsuit is solely related to the distribution of inherited property even if it is related to the distribution of inherited property, and it cannot be readily concluded that there is no relationship with the management and business interests of the Plaintiff. Of the attorney fees, the attorney fees for the attorney-at-law who was brought by the Plaintiff as a party and entered into to file a lawsuit against the Plaintiff is the expenses paid in relation to the Plaintiff
Articles 12 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Article 27 of the Corporate Tax Act
2013Nu2303. Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax
AAA, Inc.
○ Head of tax office
Busan District Court Decision 2012Guhap6217 Decided July 18, 2013
November 6, 2013
December 11, 2013
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The defendant's disposition for imposition of additional tax for the second term of December 13, 2010 (this year ＋ 2000 won + 1000 won), 2000 won for the second term of December 2006 (this year £« 2000 won + 2000 won for additional tax), 2000 won for the first term of 207 (O00 won + 200 won for additional tax), 200 won for the second term of 207 (O0 won for additional tax + 200 won for the second term of 2007 (O0 won for additional tax + 200 won for the second term of 2008), 200 won for the second term of 200 won for the second term of 200, 2000 won for additional tax for the second term of 200 O20 won for 200 won for the second term of 200, 2000 won
2. Purport of appeal
Of the judgment of the first instance court, with respect to the part of the disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff on December 13, 2010, the part of the disposition imposing value-added tax on the second term portion of the principal tax for the second term of 2006, the part of the head tax for the first term of 207, the exceeding OO out of the main tax for the second term portion of 207, the part of the head tax for the first term of 2008, the exceeding 200 won among OO out of the head tax for the second term portion of 208, the part of the disposition imposing value-added tax for the second term portion of 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200.
[Plaintiff against the first instance court in relation to the imposition of value-added tax on December 13, 201 (205, 2006, 1/2007, 1/2008, 2008, 1/2009, 1/2009, and 2/2009), the entire principal tax on February 2005 and part of the principal tax for the remainder period, 2003, 200, 209, 209, and 209) on the imposition of value-added tax on February 5, 2013 (208, 1/200, 209, 1/209), but did not appeal. The Defendant did not appeal; the part of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax on December 13, 2010 (205, 206, 2006, and 1/207) of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax on December 13, 201).
1. Details of the disposition;
The court's explanation on this part is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as Paragraph (1) of the same Article.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Of the instant litigation, the Plaintiff becomes a party to the instant lawsuit, as a matter of course, shall bear the relevant litigation cost, and as long as the Plaintiff becomes a party to the lawsuit, the relevant litigation is relevant to the Plaintiff’s business, as it is itself, since it is related to the Plaintiff’s business. Therefore, the attorney fee for the instant lawsuit, which the Plaintiff becomes
(b) Related statutes;
This Court's explanation is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as Article 2.B.
C. Determination (Judgment as to the third tax invoice of this case)
1) The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is the same as that of 12, 15, and 17, respectively, of the first instance judgment. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2) Sub-determination
(1) Of the instant dispositions, those for the second term of 206, OO(OO) for the first term of 206, 107, OO directors for the first term of 2007 (OO directors - O directors for the second term of 2007, O directors for the principal tax of 2007, O directors for the first term of 2008 (OO directors - O directors for the first term of 208), O directors for the principal tax of 208 (O directors) - O directors for the second term of 208 (O directors), 209 -O directors for the first term of 209 - 20 O directors for the second term of 209, 200 - O20 0 - 20 O20 - 20 O20 - 20 O20 - 20 O20 -20 0 -200 -20
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.