(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.06.11 2019나14127

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) 울산지방법원 2020.06.11 2019나14127

손해배상(기)

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. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, it is tenable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that since the defendant committed a tort for cancellation of the plaintiff's business registration and business license, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant had his business registration and business license cancelled only with the statement of No. 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, the legislative intent of the Value-Added Tax Act or the Income Tax Act is to enable the tax authorities to identify the taxpayer and secure the taxation data, which is the simple report of business facts established by the business operator by filing an application for registration with the head of the competent tax office, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely the issuance of the certificate proving such registration, and it does not cause a change in the status of the business operator by a change

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du2200, Jan. 27, 2011). Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 8 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the head of the competent tax office may cancel the registration of business ex officio where a business operator discontinues his/her business or does not actually commence his

In light of the above legal principles and regulations, even if the defendant requested the competent tax office to cancel the business registration for the plaintiff's business office, it is merely merely the meaning of urging the competent tax office to ex officio action, and it cannot be viewed as a tort.

In addition, the lessee's duty to restore after the termination of the lease is obligated to report the business of the leased building.

참조조문

참조판례

-대법원 2011. 1. 27. 선고 2008두2200 판결

유사 판례

-청주지방법원제천지원 2020.05.06 2020가단20124

-청주지방법원 2020.12.10 2020가단32190

-인천지방법원 2017.06.23 2016가합53028

-제주지방법원 2020.05.21 2019가합13502

-의정부지방법원 2019.08.23 2019가합53655