Seoul High Court 2010Nu2991 ( November 12, 2010)

Early High Court Decision 2008Du4134 ( October 11, 2009)

(A) The legitimacy of the assertion that the person is the representative director in actual name against the bonus disposition for the processing and purchase

(b) Although it is alleged that a loan was made in the name of the applicant for the purpose of securing the loan, there is no specific and objective evidence to ascertain the flow of the loan by the applicant through a monetary lending agreement and financial transaction evidence, and the fact that the applicant is not the representative of the applicant for the loan is not verified by objective evidence.

2010du28694 Global income and revocation of disposition

송〇〇

〇〇세무서장

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu2991 Decided November 12, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal or are recognized as groundless. Thus, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition

Reference materials.

If the grounds of final appeal are not included in the grounds of final appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of trial without continuing the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal, and refers to the system of dismissal of final appeal by judgment without continuing the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal (see this case, e.g.,