logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1983. 7. 12. 선고 82누199 판결
[행정처분취소][집31(4)특,30;공1983.9.15.(712),1274]
Main Issues

When the nominal owner and the actual building owner differ, whether the income tax based on the sales income and the defense tax are imposed on the nominal owner (negative)

Summary of Judgment

The plaintiff (Appellee) is merely a fact that only lent the name of the building permit, and the person who actually constructed and sold the apartment building and received the income therefrom from the sale of the apartment building is against the principle of substantial taxation, which imposes income tax and defense tax on the plaintiff who is merely a title holder of the building permit if he is the non-party.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 81Gu114 delivered on March 16, 1982

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of an additional appellate brief after the time limit).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant, on November 3, 1980, sold 693,015,108 won to the plaintiff on March 14, 1979 to May 12, 1980, after deducting KRW 245,981,542 from the price for the above non-party 1's land, 447,03,566 won from the total income of KRW 1,566 won, which was owned by the non-party 1, and the 1,565.7 square meters above the 1,565.7 square meters above the 1st floor underground floor of reinforced concrete building, 3,331.2 square meters above the 33rd apartment units under the plaintiff's permission, constructed the 693,015,108 apartment units under its own name and sold it to the non-party 2 and the non-party 32, and therefore, the court below's decision that it was justified by the plaintiff's reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow