logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.18 2015누64673
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 16, 17, and 18-1, 2, 19-1, 2, and 20-1, and 6-1, 19-1, 2, and 20-1, each of the evidences No. 16, 17, and 18-1, 19-1, 20, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be dismissed, and the "the same day" of No. 2, 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "the December 21, 198," and the "the fact that other circumstances might have occurred" of No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to have been stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following contents in accordance with Article 8

The main sentence of Article 8(1) of the former Farmland Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8179 of Apr. 11, 2007) shall obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the location of farmland, or the head of an Eup/Myeon/Dong having jurisdiction over the location of farmland.

It is stipulated that C had the intent to avoid restrictions under the above Farmland Act on farmland acquisition, and even if comprehensive real estate holding tax was not imposed on the Plaintiffs, it cannot be readily concluded that C had no purpose to evade taxes on the Plaintiffs solely on such circumstance alone, considering the fact that C had made a move-in report to Goyang-si, which is the location of each of the instant real estate in this case prior to the acquisition of each of the instant real estate as farmland, but had again completed the registration of ownership transfer and had again made a move-in report to Daegu, which is the original

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow