logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013. 10. 11. 선고 2013누1135 판결
양도자산 취득자금의 대출이자는 필요경비에 해당하지 아니함 [국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan19970 ( December 07, 2012)

Title

The loan interest of funds acquired by transferred assets shall not be deemed necessary expenses.

Summary

(The first instance court's decision) The loan of funds to acquire transferred assets does not fall under any of the necessary expenses listed in the Income Tax Act, and if the person who acquired transferred assets from the loan deducts the loan interest to the necessary expenses, the disposition of imposition that does not recognize the loan interest as necessary expenses is legitimate in consideration of the balance between the person who acquired the transferred assets and the person who acquired the transferred assets.

Cases

2013Nu1135 Revocation, etc. of imposition of capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

Park AA

Defendant, Appellant

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan19970 decided December 7, 2012

Conclusion of Pleadings

September 10, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

October 11, 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 shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax OOO on March 14, 2012 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act recognize the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part that considers "OOOOO" as "OOO" of the judgment of the court of first instance as "OOO" of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow