(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.09 2015누54386

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.09 2015누54386

취득세등부과처분취소

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

In August 20, 2014, the acquisition tax that the Defendant had against the Plaintiff on August 20, 2016.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the ground for the judgment by the court of first instance, except for adding some contents, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the last 10th of the judgment of the first instance court, the "first of all the dispute areas" shall be added to "one of the dispute areas".

No. 2 and 3 of the first instance judgment "No. 26 and 26" shall be applied to "No. 25 and 26".

Part 5 of the 11th judgment of the first instance court "the main Dong of this case" shall be incorporated into "the research Dong of this case".

The 12th to 15th of the judgment of the first instance shall be made by the following parts:

Therefore, since the portion of the disposition of this case imposing acquisition tax, etc. on the public area of the issue of this case and the portion applying heavy taxation rate to the septic tanks, etc. among the tax rate of this case is unlawful, it shall be revoked only for this part. The amount of tax calculated accordingly is as follows: 804,325,710,865,140 96,904,0501,062,094,090 special rural development tax for rural development tax for 22,262,570,956,070 local education tax for 116,339,960,92,492,490,492,490,332,450,942,90, 160, 160, 1608, 160, 1408, 1405, 104, 2015

The plaintiff asserts that the rate used as a research institute should be applied to the rate used as a research institute separately from the rate used as the research institute, among the key areas of the heavy tax rate in this case.

However, in full view of the statement of No. 19 and the testimony of witness A of the first instance trial, it is acquired on the premise that the parking lot, etc. is used for the purpose from the beginning to the branch.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.06.09 2015나2047653

-서울고등법원 2017.01.19 2016나2016458

-서울고등법원 2015.12.10 2015나2018440

-제주지방법원 2021.02.02 2020나11803

-서울고등법원 2017.11.02 2016나2054863