logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2008. 6. 17. 선고 2008누5454 판결
[부가가치세부과처분취소][미간행]
Plaintiff and appellant

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Jeon Soo-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant, Appellant

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 27, 2008

The first instance judgment

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap7666 Decided January 22, 2008

Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 24,292,640 for the second term of 2001, value-added tax imposed by the Defendant on Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 on June 1, 2006, KRW 24,292,640 for the second term of 202, KRW 24,160,550 for the second term of 202, KRW 19,381,90 for the second term of 203, KRW 20,891, and KRW 160 for the second term of 203, KRW 20,00 for the second term of 203, KRW 18,262,790 for the second term of 204, KRW 222,180 for the second term of 204, and KRW 20 for the second term of 200 for the second term of 204.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the "this court" in the third twentyth of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the court of first instance", and that in light of the purport of the whole argument in the statement in Eul evidence 10, the plaintiff's opinion can be recognized as having been reflected in the calculation process of the amount of taxable object above, and there is no reflective evidence, and medical expenses for medical examination, diagnosis and prescription are collected from the National Health Insurance Corporation or the receiver according to the benefits or non-benefit items under the National Health Insurance Act, and therefore, it is identical to the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for those written in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court with the same conclusion is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Ji-hee (Presiding Judge)

arrow