logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.10.19 2018누36433
양도소득세등부과처분취소
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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of partial dismissal or addition.

Therefore, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 5th parallel " September 18, 2014" shall be changed to " September 12, 2014".

4. The 10th 11th 11th am "not appropriated in the debt on the account books," "not by mistake, but by omitting in the debt on the account books."

7 Myeon 14 shares "on the part of the workplace" as "any debt related to the workplace of this case".

7. The part of the 15th to the 16th 16th eth eth eth eth eth 7th eth eth eth e.

In concluding a comprehensive succession contract with the instant corporation (the representative of promoters), on June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) determined that the total amount of assets and liabilities excluding fixed assets for business among the total amount of business assets that serve as the basis for calculating the value of investment in kind, excluding fixed assets for business as of June 30, 2012, as of June 30, 2012 (Article 3 of the contract); and (b) the audit report made on June 30, 2012 as of June 30, 2012, excluded foreign liabilities in this case; (c) the statement of assets and liabilities invested in kind, which was made thereunder, does not include the foreign liabilities in this case; (d) the corporation (the representative of the Plaintiff), based on the audit report that excluded the foreign liabilities in this case and the number of stocks granted thereto, shall be implemented from September 26, 2012; and (e) the Plaintiff may be recognized as having applied the same value as the investment in kind with the corporation in this case and the corporation in this case.

As above, the Plaintiff was the promoters of the instant legal entity that received investment in kind at the same time as the Plaintiff made investment in kind, and thereafter, the representative director is in the position of the representative director.

arrow