(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.01.18 2012누14356

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.01.18 2012누14356

종합소득세부과처분취소

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

Defendant.

Reasons

1. Grounds for this part of the grounds for the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance;

It shall be quoted 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 plaintiff's assertion 1) was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the non-party company from January 1, 2006 to November 8, 2006. However, the actual control over the management of the non-party company during the above period was not only D and C, which owned not less than 30/10 of the total number of shares issued by the above company, and the plaintiff was merely a representative in form. In particular, it is evident that the plaintiff and C were the actual representative of the non-party company during the period from June 2, 2006 to November 2, 2006, which were registered as joint representative director, the disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful. 2) The processed purchase amount in this case was generated in the course of circulation transaction without real trade, and it is not clear that the non-party company was ultimately reverted to the above company since it did not receive the price again after being paid the price corresponding to the supply price on the false purchase tax invoice to the non-party company.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the ownership of the above amount is unclear is unlawful.

3) The notification of the change in the amount of income to the Plaintiff should be made by the head of the Dong-ju Tax Office or the head of the Daejeon District Tax Office having jurisdiction over the location of the head office on the register of the non-party company, but the head of the Jung-gu Local Tax Office without authority. Therefore, the part of the penalty tax on the premise of the notification of the change in the amount of income under the pertinent

The initial date of the penalty tax in bad faith falls under the date of receipt of the notice of change in income amount.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2013. 1. 18. 선고 2012누14356 판결

-의정부지방법원 2012. 4. 17. 선고 2011구합3246 판결

-대법원 2013. 06. 27. 선고 2013두4231 판결

-대법원 2007. 04. 12. 선고 2007두2913 판결

-대구고등법원 2010. 03. 26. 선고 2009누981 판결