8년 이상 농지 소재지에 거주하면서 자경하였다고 인정하기 어려움[국승]
Suwon District Court 2013Gudan1144 (2013.09)
early 2012 Middle 2960 ( October 04, 2012)
It is difficult to recognize that he/she has resided in farmland for at least eight years;
It is difficult to recognize that a person has resided in a farmland location for at least eight years because there is no special reason to have lived far away from his/her family in view of the place of residence, the distance between the location of farmland and the location of farmland, etc., and there is no evidence to prove that he/she resided
2013Nu25681 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax, etc.
IsaA
port of origin
Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan1144 Decided August 9, 2013
July 10, 2014
July 17, 2014
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the Plaintiff on January 9, 2012 by the Defendant shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Parts used for cutting.
○ It is difficult to easily understand the third 9th page. The following shall be added:
[EE Apartment(A) for most of the period asserted by the Plaintiff, the spouse CC and currently owned DuD, who were all owners of the above OEM building, may not know the Plaintiff at all, and the Plaintiff may not use the above building for residential purpose (B). (5) The property tax notice to the Plaintiff, and the credit card payment claim under the Plaintiff’s name was the above EE Apartment for most of the periods during which the Plaintiff asserts (B). (B) The Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s credit card in the name of OOO and OO(B) and most of the places of using the Plaintiff’s credit card in the name of OOO was 11) and it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had resided in the farmland of this case for eight years or more in the location of the farmland of this case.]
A 12 or 14 B 12 or 14, which is 7 from the third bottom, shall be removed from the 6th to the 4th place on the same side, and the 21 to 27th class A 21 or 27, which is 4th from the same side and is insufficient to see the last ethm. The following shall be added:
“The owner of the farmland in this case, in particular, the FF, EG, and Kim HH made a statement to the effect that “The owner of the farmland in this case has cultivated the farmland in this case” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4, 12 through 14), and the conclusion on February 2, 200
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.