beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in paragraph (2). The reasoning of the court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that the Defendants specifically emphasized or added in the trial of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (3). Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written after the dismissal, shall be referred to as “A” as “C” in Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance.
In the first instance judgment, each of the "G" of the 6th and 13th and 6th and 13th and 13th and 13th are "I".
3. Additional determination
A. The Defendants asserted as to the exclusion period of Do and determination 1) were aware of C’s delinquency in payment of capital gains tax and the consultation on division of inherited property before April 23, 2014, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act was processed by the integrated national tax system, including imposition and collection of capital gains tax, collection and management of taxation data, and ex post facto management, etc., the Defendants asserted as to the exclusion period of Do and the fact that C’s consultation on division of inherited property was known to the branch office of the tax office having jurisdiction over the instant taxation claim. Thus, it should be deemed that a tax official who belongs to the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the tax claim was aware of the consultation on division of inherited property of this case, which is a fraudulent act, around April 23, 2014. Accordingly, the lawsuit in this case was filed one year after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the fraudulent act, and there was no evidence to acknowledge C’s duty to preserve C’s taxation claims and taxation rights.