logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.09.21 2017누69269
법인세부과처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the following among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding or adding the following judgment as to the matters alleged by the defendant, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

10 pages 21 read, “A contract with the content of acquisition does not seem to have been concluded.” It is difficult to deem that a contract with the content of acquisition was concluded, or that a contract was entered into between the Plaintiff, the Type 2 buyer and the third party with the content of comprehensively succeeding to the rights and obligations of the existing sales contract.”

11. The part of the 6th page shall be deleted from the 11st to the 8th page.

13. The parts from 13.0 p.m. to 3.m. are as follows:

"However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above 30-household sales contract has retroactively terminated because the above 30-generation sales contract has been revoked in court or has been rescinded due to the buyer's non-performance of the buyer's obligation." The following is added to "(the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition is against the tax authority, it is reasonable to deem that the reduced sales price for the type 1 and 3 and the sales rate for the following are the burden of proof by the defendant)" in the 13th 18th 13th 13th 18th .

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that, notwithstanding the cancellation and cancellation of the sales contract for the 242 households of the apartment of this case, insofar as the plaintiff did not return the already paid sales price to the existing buyers, the sale rate, which is the basis of each of the dispositions of this case, is not changed.

However, there is a sale price in relation to the buyers of the first and third categories.

arrow