logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.06 2017누40541
종합소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

3. Judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is recognized in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

The Seoul Central District Court of 20 Myeon 20 shall be the Seoul Central District Court.

4. The 20th page "Plaintiff" shall be considered as "Plaintiffs".

4. The "scheduled relocation Date" in 21 of the 4th page shall be higher than the scheduled relocation date.

5. The following shall be added to 8 pages:

The plaintiffs asserted that the penalty in this case received by the plaintiffs cannot be seen as "compensation for delay in moving into a house" among the penalty in this case, the amount equivalent to the liquidated damages in this case, which already occurred at the time of cancellation of the sale contract, shall be deemed as "compensation for delay in moving into a house" and the amount equivalent to the liquidated damages in this case shall be deemed as "compensation for delay in moving into a house" and the necessary expenses of 80% shall be deducted. However, as seen above, the plaintiffs only cancelled the sale contract and receive the penalty in this case, and it is difficult to see that there are parts of the liquidated damages in this case as alleged by the plaintiffs, and therefore, the above argument of the plaintiffs' above is not acceptable."

7. The "total amount of tax determined" in five parallels shall be regarded as "the imposition of residual tax".

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.

arrow