Seoul High Court 2012Nu24056 (Law No. 18, 2013)

National Tax Service Review Income 2011-0020 (Law No. 19, 2011)

The exclusion period should not be applied for a period of five years because it cannot be viewed as a fraud or other unlawful act even if the bank managed the deposit with a borrowed-name account.

(C) The deceased’s duty to pay interest income tax should be imposed on the deceased, and the deceased’s duty to pay tax should be imposed on the deceased’s duty to pay tax, and the deceased’s duty to pay tax should be imposed on the deceased’s duty to pay tax, and the deceased’s duty to pay tax on the deceased’s duty to pay tax on the deceased’s duty to pay tax on the deceased’s duty to pay tax.

2013du3511 global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu24056 Decided January 18, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Although examining the grounds of appeal in comparison with the records of this case and the judgment of the court below, the argument on the grounds of appeal is deemed not to include or not acceptable the grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final