(심리불속행) 간헐적 농경에 종사는 농작업의 1/2 이상을 원고의 노동력에 의하여 경작하였다고 인정하기에 부족함[국승]
Busan High Court-2017-Nu-23837 ( October 10, 2017)
(C) It is not sufficient to recognize that he had cultivated more than 1/2 of the farming work with the plaintiff's labor in a sporadic farming field.
(C) It is not sufficient to recognize that he had cultivated more than 1/2 of the farming work with the plaintiff's labor in a sporadic farming field.
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)
Supreme Court Decision 2017Du38515 Decided capital gains tax
AAA foreign country
BB Director of the Tax Office
Busan High Court Decision 2016Nu23837 Decided February 10, 2017
May 31, 2017
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Examining the judgment below and the grounds of appeal, since it is apparent that the appellant’s ground of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.