8년 이상 토지 소재지에 거주하였거나 자경한 것으로 인정하기 어려움[국승]
Jeju District Court 201Guhap864 ( October 13, 2012)
National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0085 (Law No. 1106.30)
It is difficult to recognize that a person has been residing or has been self-employed in land for at least eight years.
(As with the judgment of the court of first instance), it is difficult to recognize that the person was living in the land location or engaged in the cultivation of camping people for not less than eight years, or cultivated by one half or more of the farming work with his own labor in light of the fact that the person prepared and submitted a written confirmation that he managed the land to a third party at the time of the investigation, and most of the usage of credit cards
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
(Disposition)Revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax, 2012Nu326
XX
Head of Jeju Tax Office
Jeju District Court Decision 201Guhap864 Decided June 13, 2012
August 22, 2012
September 12, 2012
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2010 is revoked (the date of the disposition entered in the complaint, " December 7, 2010" seems to be written in writing).
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that "two evidence Nos. 1 and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance" No. 1 and 5 of the judgment No. 3 is "2 of the evidence No. 1 and 5 of the judgment No. 19 of the court of first instance" and "6 of the evidence No. 13 of the evidence No. 1 and No. 13 of the judgment No. 19 of the court of first instance. 6 of the plaintiff's new argument at the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as follows, it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment
2. Determination on new arguments in the trial
The plaintiff asserts that since the acquisition value of the land of this case is not KRW 000,000, which is stipulated in the sales contract submitted at the time of acquisition, the transfer income tax of this case imposed on the premise that the acquisition value is KRW 000,000, should be reduced. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion is without merit
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.