양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of evidence Nos. 36 or 57 (including serial numbers) which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as additional evidence submitted by the court of first instance, and thus, it cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the instant farmland does not constitute self-sufficient farmland for not less than eight years under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, is unlawful.
Even after 2000, the Plaintiff earned a large amount of 400 million won or more earned income from the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 400 million each year since 2000, the reason is that G Co. was due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s business losses were removed from the Plaintiff’s business, and that H, the head of son, assumed the Plaintiff’s office as the representative, and embezzled the company’s money by withdrawing money from the Plaintiff’s account and using it.
The plaintiff's age cannot be said to be a lot of years since the plaintiff's age was a farming shed, and the land that the plaintiff leased to the Korea Agricultural Corporation or the Korea Agricultural Corporation was cultivated directly by the plaintiff while in office.
B. As to the wage and salary income that the Plaintiff acquired since 2000, the first instance court explained that the above wage and salary income is actually the interest income from loans or real estate rent income from the Plaintiff’s loan, and is merely the nominal income used to pay the Plaintiff’s tax liability, etc. However, in the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted that the said wage and salary income is the money paid as a honorary tea or embezzlement fund of H, and the Plaintiff is difficult to congested or manage all the farmland owned by the Plaintiff in the first instance court.