(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.08.22 2018누42940

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 2018.08.22 2018누42940

법인세경정거부처분취소

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as admitting the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the corresponding part of the judgment

2. The following revisions are made from 4 pages to 7 of the following: "Along with the 8th Amendment," the phrase "shall be interpreted as "abstinance" under the principle of tax law, or the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall not be expanded or analogically interpreted without any justifiable reason, unless there are special circumstances. It seems that the strict interpretation of the phrase "abstinance" under the main sentence of Article 3 (3) 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which constitutes an exceptional provision for reduction or exemption, is also in accord with the principle of tax equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7392, May 28, 2004). It seems that the phrase "abstinance" under the main sentence of Article 3 (3) 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which directly uses land for a clan with a specific purpose, and thus it cannot be permitted for the plaintiff to directly use the land for a clan.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's disposition of this case unfairly discriminates without reasonable grounds, which is not directly used for the proper purpose business of clans, which is obviously used for profit-making business by leasing the land to a third party.

(i) "";

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.

참조조문

참조판례

-대법원 2004. 5. 28. 선고 2003두7392 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018. 08. 22. 선고 2018누42940 판결

-전주지방법원 2018. 09. 12. 선고 2017구합2704 판결

-서울행정법원 2018. 03. 30. 선고 2017구합73167 판결

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.11.26 2018누1478

-서울고등법원 2019.11.06 2019누31589