관상수 묘목을 식재 관리하면서 8년 이상 자경하였다는 주장의 당부[국승]
Jeju District Court 2008Guhap765 (2009.08)
Cho High Court Decision 2008Da2409 (Law No. 9, 30, 2008)
The legitimacy of the assertion that a self-refiscing has been made for at least eight years while planting and planting ornamental tree seedlings;
The plaintiff's landscaping business opening and planting and managing ornamental tree seedlings on the ground of each land of this case is deemed to have run the landscape gardening business independently, and it does not constitute a direct landscape.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 54,940,020 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2008 shall be revoked.
1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;
The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is that "at the trial after August 18, 1998, the plaintiff has planted and managed ornamental tree seedlings on each of the land of this case and cultivated them directly to the prisoner after planting and managing them on each of the land of this case." Among the additional evidence submitted to support the plaintiff's argument, the testimony of the witness Kim Young-ri, Kim Young-ri, from among the additional evidence submitted in order to support the plaintiff's argument that Kim Young-ri, as the plaintiff's husband is the plaintiff's husband, it is rejected because it is difficult to believe it easily. According to the evidence No. 8, No. 9, No. 9 and No. 1, and No. 2, No. 1, No. 1991, the farmland ledger prepared and managed from February 1, 1991, it can be recognized that the plaintiff's husband Kim-ri, the plaintiff's husband of this case is the farmer's owner of the farmland of this case. However, even if it is more sufficient to recognize the above plaintiff's's argument.
2. Conclusion
Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, so it is decided to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal as it is the same as the disposition.