logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.09.26 2014누44405
양도소득세경정거부처분취소
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 is the same as the reasoning 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. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

(1) On the 4th page 15, “the expenses for removing disability incurred for the convenience of land use” shall be added to “the expenses for removing disability” under Article 163 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 79 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act.

(2) On face 7, the following shall be added to the third place:

The term "those prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance" in Article 79 (Calculation of Necessary expenses, etc. of transferred assets) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (1) 4 of the Decree means the following expenses:

1. Expenses incurred in implementing projects, such as expenses borne by the beneficiaries within the relevant project zone due to a project implemented under the River Act, the Act on Construction of Dams and Assistance, etc. to their Environs;

2. Expenses for removal of obstacles disbursed for the convenience of land utilization; and

3. Where a road is newly constructed on the relevant land or the land owned by another person adjacent to the relevant land for the convenience of land use, the costs of such construction;

4. Where a new road is built on the relevant land for the convenience of land utilization and provided free of charge to the State or a local government, the price at the time of acquisition of the land which becomes the said road;

5. Expenses incurred in erosion control work.

6. Expenses similar to those under subparagraphs 1 through 5.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow