농지대토 관련 농지를 실제 자경하였는지 여부[국승]
Seoul High Court 2009Nu17867 ( December 10, 2009)
Early High Court Decision 2008J 2184 (2008.03)
Whether farmland related to farmland substitute land has been actually cultivated or not;
Examining whether or not farmland substitute land has been self-confiscated, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was not self-confiscated for three or more years prior to the transfer of farmland on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff gave birth to each son before five years prior to the acquisition of farmland; (b) the Plaintiff prepared a certificate that the farmland was leased to another person in the process of acquiring farmland; and
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
쇠지지 지은은 3000 아은은은은 3000 아은은은은은이 3000 아은은은은은은 3000 아은은아은은 3000 이 이 3000 이 30020201521
쇠지지300 쇠지지지 3000 지지지 3000 redA
쇠지지300 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지 3000
Article 300 u u3000 u300 n u3000 n u3000 Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu17867 Decided December 10, 2009
쇠은은 이 개은은은 3000 개은은은 3000 개은은은은은 3000 이 이 이 3000 fishery 28 October 28, 2002
44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to Article 89 subparag. 4 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005) and Article 153(2) subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19254 of Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same), where a person who has resided in a large-scale farmland for not less than three years due to necessity for cultivation and cultivated while residing in a new farmland location for not less than three years, or where he/she acquired another farmland within one year from the date of transfer and resided in a new farmland location for not less than three years, or where he/she newly acquired farmland within one year from the date of acquisition and cultivates farmland while residing in a new farmland location for not less than three years, capital gains tax shall not be imposed on income accruing from the large-scale farmland.
2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the transfer income from the transfer of the farmland of this case does not constitute a non-taxation object of transfer income tax without further review as to whether the Plaintiff met the remaining requirements for non-taxation of transfer income tax under Article 153(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, on the grounds that it is reasonable
In light of the above relevant laws and records, such fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable. In so doing, there are no errors of misapprehending the legal principles or violating the rules of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Dan 300 Mau300 Mau 3000 Mau Mau 3000 Mau300
Dan 300 Ma300 Ma3000 Mau300 Mau300 Man Mal3000
Justices Yinu300 Mau300 Mau3000 Dol-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-