logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.16 2016누34655
양도소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the following shall be revoked:

The defendant on 2012.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (including additional tax) with the exception of adding "437,09,250 won" of the second 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance (including additional tax). Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 18 to No. 39) is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.

The third-class 3 through 5 are as follows.

“2) The acquisition tax and registration tax incurred at the time of transferring the instant land under the name of D, the acquisition tax and registration tax incurred at the time of registration of inheritance in the Plaintiff’s name after D death, the auction execution expenses incurred at the time of sale of the instant land, the construction permission for conversion of land for the instant land to the land, the expenses paid in the course of civil and design work, the preparation of cutting and mination work, and the expenses for alternative forest creation paid according to the permission for conversion, shall

The following is added under Part 3, 9, the Plaintiff did not think that the Plaintiff was a real owner who purchased the instant land from C. As such, the Plaintiff could not report the transfer income tax with the same transfer value and acquisition value as the instant disposition (However, as the instant land was inevitably registered under the Plaintiff’s father D’s death, the Plaintiff’s transfer registration was completed under the Plaintiff’s name and the instant land was sold by auction.

The plaintiff is responsible for the duty of care.

arrow