logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013. 07. 19. 선고 2013누6574 판결
수용보상금이 절대적 불확지 공탁된 경우 공탁금출급청구권확인 소의 판결 확정일이 양도시기임[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan14241 ( October 23, 2013)

Case Number of the previous trial

Seocho 2012west 114 (Law No. 13, 2012)

Title

Where the compensation for expropriation has been deposited absolutely, the date when the judgment of the court to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money becomes final and conclusive.

Summary

(1) The transfer time is reasonable in light of the following: (a) the Korea Land and Housing Corporation made an absolute and impossible deposit on the ground that the genuine right holder cannot be identified to receive the land expropriation compensation; and (b) can be deemed to have been able to withdraw the deposit only when the lawsuit to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money becomes final and conclusive.

Cases

2013Nu6574 Revocation of disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

Plaintiff, Appellant

LAA

Defendant, appellant and appellant

The Head of Seodaemun Tax Office et al.

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan14241 decided January 23, 2013

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 7, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

July 19, 2013

Text

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

Purport of claim

The decision of the head of Seodaemun Tax Office to refuse the request for correction of each transfer income tax made on November 20, 201 by the head of Seodaemun Tax Office on November 25, 201, and by the head of Sungnam Tax Office on November 24, 201, against Plaintiff Choi Jae-hee, and by the head of Seocho Tax Office on November 20, 201 by the head of Seocho Tax Office on November 20, 201.

Purport of appeal

The first instance judgment is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The reasons for this decision are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the appeal by the defendants is dismissed. It is so decided as per

arrow