logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2013. 01. 10. 선고 2012누2120 판결
부과처분에 대한 충분한 설명과 시간적 여유를 주지 아니하였다고 하여 부과처분이 위법하게 되는 것은 아님[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Gudan1117 Decided September 7, 2012

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High 2012 Before 0897 (O. 30, 2012)

Title

The imposition disposition is not unlawful on the ground that there is no sufficient time to give sufficient explanation and time to the taxation disposition.

Summary

To the extent that the imposition of capital gains tax on the previous land is legitimate, it is not illegal to impose capital gains tax on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have sufficient explanation and time to make it possible for him/her to obtain, or did not take measures to respond to the employees of the tax office that committed an error in the course

Cases

2012Nu2120 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

XX

Defendant, Appellant

Head of Busan District Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Gudan1117 Decided September 7, 2012

Conclusion of Pleadings

December 6, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

January 10, 2013

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 judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on September 1, 201 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2011 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is that the reasoning for this case is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of

As the grounds for appeal was raised in the first instance, even though the time difference due to the transfer income tax imposed at the time of the initial imposition, the Defendant’s seizure of the Plaintiff’s property without sufficient explanation to the extent that it would gain tax without permission, and even if the amount to be deducted as a matter of course when imposing the tax was erroneous, the Plaintiff’s property was seized, and the Plaintiff’s employees were forced to receive tax, and thereafter did not take any measures to comply with the aforementioned erroneous payment.

However, as determined earlier, since the imposition of capital gains tax on the land of this case is lawful, the disposition of this case is not unlawful because it did not give sufficient explanation and time to make it possible for the plaintiff to own, or did not take measures to comply with the tax office's tax office that committed an error in the course of performing its duties. Furthermore, although the imposition of capital gains tax on the remaining land of this case was made again by the error of imposing capital gains tax on the defendant, the imposition of capital gains tax on the land of this case is not illegal, and the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow