logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2011.06.13 2010누1281
종합토지세 부과처분 등 무효확인
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff’s former head of the tax office shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The part except the conclusion among the reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case is added between the court's 6th trial's 20 and 21th trial's 6th trial's 2006Du17499, "the plaintiff participated in the above Supreme Court's 2006Du17499," and "the defendant's 8th 15th and 16th 8th 16th 200, "the defendant's 16th 16th 16th 200," and "the plaintiff was additionally submitted to the court's 14th 2002 and was not a substantial representative of the company of this case."

“A evidence Nos. 6-3, 7, and 10 which are insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, shall be rejected. The judgment of the chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits of the case and the judgment on the application for resumption of the Plaintiff’s pleading made after the closure of the oral argument at the trial court shall be added as stated in paragraph (2) below, and the same is stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for deletion of the part of “3. conclusion” of No. 10 of the first instance judgment, No. 10 of the first instance judgment, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) As to the lawsuit of this case seeking invalidation on the grounds that the notice of change in the amount of income in this case was unlawful against the chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the head of the tax office prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case, the chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the head of the tax office prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case asserts that the lawsuit against the Plaintiff is unlawful, since the notice of change in amount of income in this case against the Plaintiff is not an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. 2) On the other hand, the notice of change in amount of income to the corporation of the tax authority

arrow