(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.08 2013누54009

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.08 2013누54009

법인세등부과처분취소

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence submitted in the court of first instance and Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 16 (including serial numbers) which are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and Eul witness H and I witness of the court of first instance shall be dismissed, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except where the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used or added as set forth below No. 2. 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be

2. The portion written or added shall be referred to as “the December 28, 2013,” as “the December 26, 2012,” set forth in Part 1 of Part 3.

In consideration of the 14th page of the 6th page, the actual contents shall include, before “the following”:

According to the statement No. 16 and the reply of the submission of tax information to the Director of the Korea Tax Service at the trial court at the trial court at the time, the plaintiff on January 5, 2012 against the plaintiff was deemed as a title trust and a gift by the plaintiff on May 19, 2006. "The plaintiff imposed gift tax on the plaintiff on the ground of title trust on the shares of the entertainment drinking house at the trial court at the trial court at the trial court at the trial court at the time of the plaintiff's offering of the title trust (the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff was merely the owner of the above shares received gift tax under the plaintiff's name and did not know of the plaintiff, but there was no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was involved in the operation of the entertainment drinking house at the trial at the trial at the trial court at the time of the plaintiff's testimony).

No. 4. No. 3. 5. 【No. 4. Ha. Ha. Ha were involved in management by exercising voting rights as a shareholder. No. 5. 1. 5. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1.

In this situation, H et al. receives some dividends or residual assets according to the investment ratio.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015. 04. 08. 선고 2013누54009 판결

-서울고등법원 2018.01.31 2017누37880

-서울고등법원 2017.11.24 2017나2021358

-서울고등법원 2017.12.13 2017누48828

-대전고등법원 2018.02.21 2015나13124