대법원 판결이전의 부과처분으로 판례가 변경되기 전의 판례에 따른 것으로 그 하자가 명백하다고 볼수 없음[국승]
Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-139 (Law No. 13, 2017)
It cannot be viewed that the defect is obvious as it was based on the precedents before the Supreme Court's ruling was changed due to a disposition prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
It cannot be viewed that the defect is obvious as it was based on the precedents before the Supreme Court's ruling was changed due to a disposition prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
Article 21 of the Income Tax Act Miscellaneous Incomes
Seoul High Court 2017Nu57099
Is 00
000 director of the tax office
November 15, 2017
December 20, 2017
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On May 8, 2014, the defendant confirmed that the imposition of global income tax of KRW 26,552,540 against the plaintiff for the year 2009 is null and void.
The court's reasoning for this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation
Article 8 (2) of the Court Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is.
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
It is so decided as per Disposition.