(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.01 2017누42219

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 2017.11.01 2017누42219

부가가치세부과처분취소

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 reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 16 to No. 4) is the same with the corresponding part of the grounds for the decision of the court of first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where “the instant disposition” is deemed to be “the instant disposition.”

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this case is the same as the judgment of the first instance). 2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The court's explanation on this part of the plaintiff's assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in Articles 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where "the instant disposition" is referred to as "the instant disposition" as "the instant disposition."

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, with the exception of the dismissal or addition as to this part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance (from No. 4, No. 18 to No. 8, No. 9). As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act,

Part 6 of the third page "Presidential Decree No. 22052, Feb. 18, 2010" shall be read as "Presidential Decree No. 22351, Aug. 17, 2010".

Part 6 of the 7th page " shall be deleted."

The following shall be added to "the 3 to 15 stories" in the 7th place of office:

The “officetel” in paragraph 1 of the same paragraph shall be added to the following:

The “videos” in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the 8th page shall be added to “the results of inquiry into the head of the Gyeonggi Regional Headquarters of this Court and the Korea Electric Power Corporation.”

The 8th parallels 5 to 9 shall be as follows:

“The instant officetel, therefore, is a multi-family housing (or multi-family housing).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2013.12.12 2013누10344

-서울고등법원 2017. 11. 01. 선고 2017누42219 판결

-대전고등법원 2017.09.28 2017누11426

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.03.14 2017누1013

-서울고등법원 2018.02.07 2017누50692