logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017. 03. 30. 선고 2016두63286 판결
원고가 귀속명의와 실질이 다르다는 점을 입증하지 못하였으다.[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-5201 ( November 16, 2016)

Title

The plaintiff did not prove that the title and substance are different from that of attribution.

Summary

Since it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not transfer the business of the instant place of business through the form of lease, but entrusted the operation to a third party, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

Related statutes

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cases

Supreme Court-2016-Du-63286 ( March 30, 2017)

Plaintiff

MaximumO

Defendant

O Head of tax office

Imposition of Judgment

2017.030

Text

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the argument on the grounds of appeal by the appellant falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as

arrow