logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2015.01.16 2014누6235
취득세등부과처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 "A, B, and C" in Part 16 of the judgment of the first instance court is considered as "the construction of tax exchange, the construction of new roads, and the comprehensive construction of new roads."

Article 105(2) of the fifth through tenth of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be construed as “Article 105(2) of the Local Tax Act (Article 7(2) of the Local Tax Act in force after November 1, 201).”

Article 110 subparag. 1 of the former Local Tax Act (Article 9(3) of the Local Tax Act, which is in force after November 1, 201), of the fifth fifth decision of the court of first instance, is "Article 110 subparag. 1 of the former Local Tax Act".

Article 269(5) of the former Local Tax Act (Article 34(1) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act enacted on March 31, 2010)(Article 269(5) of the former Local Tax Act (Article 34(1) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, which was in force on November 1, 201), provides for the 5th sentence of the first instance trial.

The Local Tax Act of 7th and 8th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be respectively referred to as the "former Local Tax Act".

2. As such, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, since the "Special Rural Development Tax 7,443,310 won" in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "Special Rural Development Tax 7,44,310 won."

arrow