logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.16 2016누71432
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The second 2nd 2nd 20 Emb. “Ambol” shall be changed to “Pamdong”.

Part 17 of the 3rd 17th page “B 1 and 2” shall be read as “B Nos. 1, 2, and B 7-1, 2-2”, and “D” of the 4th 20th mar is added as “the Plaintiff and others” thereafter.

The portion of 5th 13-19 of the “(Supreme Court Decision, etc.)” is deleted, and the last sentence “this court” is replaced by “the court of first instance” and “the witness” by “the witness of the court of first instance”.

Part 6 of Paragraph 11 provides that " through the overall purport of the pleading," "A evidence Nos. 22-1 through 7, A evidence No. 23-1 through 12, and evidence No. 24-1 through 4, shall be added to the whole purport of the pleading."

Then, “the remittance was made” in Part 14 of the 6th page, and “The circumstances, such as all or part of the money was returned to the Plaintiff even if D immediately withdrawn in cash as seen above, shall not have been disclosed).”

Article 14-16 of the 6th one provides that “(3) The unit price supplied by the Plaintiff with the closed Dong from E is identical or similar to the unit price supplied by other companies at that time, and the size of the transaction with the Plaintiff and E is difficult to be considered as an exceptional in light of the Plaintiff’s total size of the transaction in 2011 and the scale of the trade by company.”

3. In conclusion, the decision 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