logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.19 2017누44598
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the deletion, addition, or modification of some contents as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

The part of deletion, addition or change shall be deleted from the 3rd page 8 and 9 of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

The following shall be added to the third sentence following the last sentence of the first instance judgment:

G. On April 10, 2017, the Defendant calculated a penalty surcharge of KRW 553,044,730,000 as to each of the instant land on an individual basis according to the value of each of the instant land and the period of breach of duty, and added by adding the penalty surcharge thereto.

1. A correction was made to reduce the amount of KRW 486,872,230 on the calculation sheet of penalty surcharges;

(A) Of the disposition imposing a penalty surcharge on April 18, 2016, the remaining part of the disposition imposing a penalty surcharge on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act was replaced by “No. 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the first instance judgment” as “No. 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the first instance judgment.” Each of the first instance judgment No. 5, No. 19, No. 6, and No. 7, “No. 3-2 of the Real Estate Real Name Act” was replaced by “Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act. No. 6, No. 5, and No. 6 of the first instance judgment was replaced by “The Plaintiff did not believe that there was no purpose of evading or avoiding tax evasion or statutory restrictions in title trust of each of the instant land, and the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to acknowledge otherwise in terms of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 7.

The following shall be added to “Nos. 1 and 5 (including each number)” in Part 6 of the Decision of the first instance. “No. 6” shall be added to “No. 6.” The following shall be added to “facts” in Part 6, 17, of the Decision of the first instance. The purchase of each of the instant lands shall be made.

arrow