logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013. 10. 25. 선고 2013누10931 판결
원고를 차명주주로 봄이 상당하므로,원고가 과점주주임을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법함[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap16718 ( October 15, 2013)

Title

Since it is reasonable to see the plaintiff as the second-name shareholder, and the disposition of this case premised on the plaintiff as the oligopolistic shareholder is unlawful.

Summary

(1) The Plaintiff’s physical guarantee can be deemed to be an act to assist the self-style ParkCC. The Plaintiff’s final academic background is highly likely to be nominal due to the lack of expertise in order to operate the chemical drug wholesale, but it is difficult to deem that ParkCC led to the disposal of shares, and that the shareholders’ members were all family members, and thus, paid the share price.

Related statutes

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cases

2013Nu10931 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

Plaintiff, Appellant

KimA

Defendant, appellant and appellant

Head of Guro Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap16718 decided March 15, 2013

Conclusion of Pleadings

August 30, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

October 25, 2013

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

On June 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of OOO(including additional taxes), OO(including additional taxes), OO(including additional taxes), 2009, 2008, OO(including additional taxes), 2008, 2000, and OO(including additional taxes) of corporate tax for the business year 2010.

subsection (1)

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The reasons for this decision are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow