(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.08.28 2020누33826

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 2020.08.28 2020누33826

부가가치세경정거부처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Acknowledgement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional or further portions, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added between the fourth and Eleventh of the judgment of the first instance:

3) The Plaintiff is exempt from value-added tax pursuant to Article 40(1)10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, as an assistant to the performance of a special purpose company.

"The parties concerned shall prepare all appropriate additional documents and certificates which are legally required in order to have such appointment in the form of an asset-backed securitization business" in the second and third instances of the first instance judgment. "The parties concerned shall prepare all appropriate additional documents and certificates which are legally required in order to keep such appointment in the form of an appointment; "the contract" in the sixth and the 8th page 15 shall be deemed to be "the contract"; and "the time" in the 8th sentence shall be deemed to be "the time" in the 15th sentence of the first instance judgment; "the management of securitized assets shall be deemed to be one of the asset-backed securitization business; "the asset-backed securitization business or asset-backed securitization business" in Article 40 (1) 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be interpreted to be "the asset-backed securitization business or asset-backed business" in the absence of any special purpose company's asset-backed securitization business, and thus, it shall be deemed to be unfair to separate from the above asset-backed securitization business in light of the asset-backed business.

The decision of the first instance shall be conducted between the 16th and 16th.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-부가가치세법 시행령 제40조 제1항 제10호

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2021.04.07 2020나2025251

-부산고등법원 2017.11.22 2017나54060

-대전고등법원 2016.11.02 2016누11870

-서울고등법원 2017.11.29 2017나2020935

-서울고등법원 2019.08.30 2019누34489