청구인이 쟁점농지를 8년 이상 자경한 것으로 보아 감면 적용함은 타당함[국승]
Incheon District Court 2013Guhap10292, 209
It is reasonable to apply reduction and exemption by deeming that the claimant has limited the farmland for at least eight years.
The claimant has a considerable amount of earned income from 1998 to the time of transfer, it is difficult to view the letter of credit guarantee as objective material to prove the fact of self-defense, according to the "Detailed Statement of Agricultural Loss Compensation", the actual farmer is not verified, the consumption method for harvested material in the farmland at issue is unclear, and there is a lack of objective proof of the claimant's self-defense, and therefore, it is difficult to accept the letter of credit.
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)
2013Nu48455 Revocation of disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification
NewA
◆◆세무서장
June 13, 2014
July 11, 2014
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection of correction against the plaintiff on September 21, 2012 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) It is difficult to recognize the result of the fact-finding inquiry about the ○○ Urban Construction in this court, and adding "in addition, it is not possible to recognize such result only" to the first place of conduct.
(2) No. 5 and 6 of pages 5 are as follows:
"Around March 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff received a guarantee from the neighboring local residents, and prepared and submitted a confirmation of the fact of cultivation on the instant land, and the ○○ Urban Corporation paid KRW 0 million to the Plaintiff based on the confirmation of the fact of cultivation. However, this fact can be a material supporting that the Plaintiff re-satisfing the instant land around March 2012. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff sufficiently proven that the Plaintiff re-satisfing the instant land for at least eight years until that time."
Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.