(심리불속행) 8년 이상 토지를 농지로 직접 경작하였음을 인정하기 어려움[국승]
Seoul High Court 2013Nu22538 (Law No. 19, 2014)
early 2012 Middle 1686 ( October 15, 2012)
(C) It is difficult to recognize that the land was directly cultivated as farmland for not less than eight years.
In light of the fact that it is difficult to believe that the owner of land directly cultivated the land for at least eight years in light of the fact that the owner of the land directly cultivated the land as farmland and that it is difficult to verify the fact that the owner of the land directly cultivated the land for at least eight years in view of the fact that he/she held office as the representative director of the corporation or carried on business for the period of holding the land
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
2014Du4993 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
AAA
The director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu22538 Decided February 19, 2014
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons for this court's explanation are as follows: (a) the amount of income (the unit: 00,000 won) of 585-31 Eul, 583-31, 3-13 of the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the total income (the unit: 0,000 won). (b) the amount of income of 4-10 shall be the total income of 4-10, the amount of business income of 4-10 shall be the total income, respectively, and (c) the amount of 4-17-19 of 4-19 shall be the amount of 4-19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted, and (d) the plaintiff asserts that he received the direct non-payment subsidy under his own judgment, and (e) the plaintiff shall be cited by the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any addition under the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in particular or re-re-re
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the lands of this case for at least eight years, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff cultivated bean, cryp, and scam in the house; (b) the agricultural cooperative members purchased agricultural materials to form a farmer’s death after completing military service; and (c) according to the farmland ledger issued by the head of the Si/Gu/Eup in Gwangju-si, the land of this case is written as the Plaintiff’s self-scam; and (b) even if the Plaintiff had certain business income, it was sufficiently possible for the Plaintiff to self-scam in each of the lands of this case.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 32, and 34 (including virtual number), the plaintiff stated that each of the land of this case is cultivated by the plaintiff in the farmland ledger. It is acknowledged that the plaintiff received direct non-payment subsidies from 2006 to the time of transfer of each of the land of this case, but the following circumstances, namely, ① the period for which the plaintiff asserted that he cultivated each of the land of this case, was working as the representative director of BB, a corporation operating a furniture business in 2002 and 2003, and since 2004 to 208, the plaintiff was registered as the business owner of CCC who directly operated the farmland of this case in the name of BB, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to prove that the land of this case was not cultivated by the plaintiff since 2006 to 208, since 302, it is hard to find that the plaintiff had been in the name of BB, a representative director of CCC's business operator, and there was no objective data to prove that the plaintiff had received each of this case's labor force from 20008/3.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.