Seoul High Court 2011Nu13875 ( October 27, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2010Du0668 ( October 16, 2010)

(C) In the event that only the duty to remove a building is only delivered or the duty to transfer the building is not imposed, it does not constitute the supply of the goods.

(C) Article 18(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that “The former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that “The latter shall apply mutatis mutandis to the latter.”

Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Du28943 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

KoreaA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu13875 Decided October 27, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the appellant's ground of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final