logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.09 2017누49210
종합소득세부과처분 무효확인 등
Text

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.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

The 5th 4th 7th 5th 7th 1st 5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 5th 1st 8th 8th 8th 12th 12th 12th 9th 9th 13th 2th 1st 2th 2th 1st

The 5th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 3th 19th 19th 3th 19, "it is only the brokerage of the bill and the check, upon the request of D for the discount of the bill."

7. The income of this case in the 7th place shall be regarded as the "interest income of this case".

7.On the 11th page, the following shall be added:

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case based on the confirmation document also is unlawful, since it is contradictory that the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 49,395,359 to the building association of this case on May 10, 2005 based on the confirmation document of this case to receive the total of KRW 587,621,567 from May 10, 2005 to the building association of this case, and there is no loan in the case of 2005, but there is no loan in the case of a year of 2005, and the annual loan and collection amount were adjusted to have been collected to have been collected, and it cannot be viewed as a monetary loan to collect some amount before making a loan. In the case of 2008, it is contradictory that D paid KRW 40,00,000 to the plaintiff, but paid the principal amount of KRW 100,000,000.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant calculated the interest income of this case for the year 2007, and included only the portion that the plaintiff did not prove the cause of assertion, such as the interest of the members of the association, among the money deposited to the plaintiff after the withdrawal of the money.

arrow