(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.10.05 2017누87113

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 2018.10.05 2017누87113

종합소득세부과처분 등 취소청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the following among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) above, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

The 3th 9th 9th m "the first cafeteria is D in the first place, and the last cafeteria has been operated by E in the last place)" shall be "D in the first place, and E has been operated in the last place, or entrusted with operation or management."

4. Each entry and witness of the 18th page "(including each number)" shall be considered as "each entry and witness of the first instance court".

5.On the 5th page, the following shall be added:

The plaintiff asserts that "(the plaintiff) under the name of the plaintiff the restaurant building and business registration in order to facilitate the recovery of investment funds and the transfer of land to D.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff leased a 943.6mm2 in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is owned by G, is not D but the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appears not to have sufficient cafeteria building for the collection of the investment money, and that it is not necessary to make the Plaintiff’s name any further business registration. In the event that a business registration is made under the Plaintiff’s name, tax-related burden and risk, such as the return and payment of value-added tax on the cafeteria restaurant and the comprehensive income tax, etc. on the cafeteria, and the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was not able to fully recover the investment principal from Y even though he was registered under the Plaintiff’s name

) 6.9 pages 6. The following shall be added:

Before the withdrawal of D, the Plaintiff is a way that D is delivered or remitted from E.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018. 10. 05. 선고 2017누87113 판결

-서울행정법원 2017.11.17 2016구합76053

-서울고등법원 2019.05.15 2018나2059503

-서울행정법원 2017. 11. 17. 선고 2016구합76053 판결

-대전지방법원 2017.11.03 2016가단214305