(심리불속행) 자경하지 않은 것으로 보아 비사업용토지로 본 처분은 적법함[국승]
Seoul High Court 2010Nu5181 (2010.09)
Early High Court Decision 2009Du1619 (Law No. 96.03)
(C) The disposal of the land for non-business which is deemed not self-confisced shall be lawful.
(C) It is difficult to see that, in light of the fact that a dentist, service business, or construction business has served as a representative, it is difficult to cultivate the land at the same time while engaging in the above duties, and even if it was possible to temporarily manage the cultivation of vegetables, etc. on weekends or holidays, it is difficult to see that it was self
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Although the judgment of the court below was examined in light of the records of this case, it is recognized that the assertion on the grounds of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Reference materials.
If the grounds of final appeal are not included in the grounds of final appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violations of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal does not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal, and refers to the system of dismissing final appeal by judgment without continuing to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds of final appeal (see