양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in addition to this court (including evidence Nos. 27 (including paper numbers) and the tax information reply by a regional tax office of this court) is rather consistent with the defendant's argument. The above tax information replys with the defendant's argument, and it is difficult to affect the conclusion of this case.
In light of the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court is justified.
Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of the court on the instant case is as follows, and the judgment of the court on the assertion that the Plaintiff specifically emphasized as the grounds for appeal is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of Paragraph 2 after adding a decision on the assertion that the Plaintiff had been specially emphasized as the grounds for appeal. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the
Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as "employee 2" from December 17, 2015 to December 23, 2015.
The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.
According to Article 133 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015) Article 133 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015), the scope of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-employed farmland is 200 million won.
Application 】 Application 】 482,868 4,062 47,621 40,621 5 of land No. 40,879 32,879 x 32,879 x 32,879 x 264,879 968,483 267,879 x 4 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance [based on recognition] added “B No. 27” to
Part 12 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. Part 9 to 10 of the judgment of the first instance are as follows.
The Plaintiff’s mother who owned land adjacent to the issues is Pdoz.