beta
부산고등법원 2017. 05. 31. 선고 2017누20187 판결

원고가 농작업의 2분의 1이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 경작하였음을 인정하기에 부족하다[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Busan District Court-2016-Gu 23395 ( December 29, 2016)

Title

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff cultivated more than half of farming work with his own labor.

Summary

Since it is insufficient for the Plaintiff to recognize that he was engaged in the cultivation of crops in each land of this case or engaged in the cultivation of more than half of farming work with his own labor, the judgment of the first instance court is still justified.

Related statutes

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Cases

Busan High Court 2017Nu20187 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

AA

Defendant, Appellant

The Director of the Z Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Busan District Court Decision 2016Guhap23395 Decided December 29, 2016

Conclusion of Pleadings

on October 17, 2017

Imposition of Judgment

on October 31, 2017

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 against the plaintiff on March 2, 2016.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is to use for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Transmission Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the only evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in cultivating crops or growing more than half of farming works on each land of this case with his own labor. The Plaintiff basically repeats the same argument in the first instance court, and even if the Plaintiff considered some complementary arguments and re-examines the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in a consistent manner with the record, the first instance court’s judgment is still justifiable.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As a result, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.