Seoul High Court 2013Nu11699 (2014.02.07)

Cho High Court Decision 2008west 4184 (Law No. 96.03)

(Resceptive Conduct) The evidentiary materials of the Housing Repair Corporation, etc. shall not be deemed necessary due to the lack of such evidentiary materials.

(1) In the event that a tax invoice is issued only after the lapse of at least seven months after the completion of the construction, the issuance of the tax invoice shall not be deemed necessary expenses on the following grounds: (a) the additional repair work on the summary of the house was carried out and received in cash or by cashier’s checks in several times; and (b) the issuance of the tax invoice shall not be deemed a

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2014Du4788 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

United Kingdom A

port of origin

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu11699 Decided February 7, 2014

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 for Appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) on May 27, 2008, No. 6, May 27, 2008, and (b) on May 27, 2009, May 27, 2009; and (c) on the part of the plaintiff, the judgment of the court of first instance is recorded in addition to addition of the judgment as follows.

2. The addition;

The plaintiff argued that the construction cost of this case was changed by additionally recognizing it as necessary expenses, but even if the plaintiff alleged that the construction cost of this case was erroneous in the previous process of remodeling work, such as the plaintiff's assertion, even if the plaintiff alleged that the construction cost of this case was erroneous in the previous process of remodeling work, the evidence submitted by the court of first instance and the trial alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff spent the construction cost of this case as the remodeling work of this case for the housing of this case, since May 2008 to March 2009, since the first remodeling work for the housing of this case was completed around May 2008 due to the previous mistake, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff spent the construction cost of this case as the remodeling work of this case for the housing of this case.

3. Conclusion

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