beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 06. 13. 선고 2011누41962 판결

8년 이상 자경한 것으로 인정하기 어려움[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court 201Gudan1601 ( October 31, 2011)

Case Number of the previous trial

Early High Court 201J 0793 ( October 25, 2011)

Title

It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.

Summary

It is difficult to recognize that not less than 1/2 of the farming work has been cultivated by his own labor in the transferred farmland in light of the fact that while residing in the city adjacent to the location of the farmland, the distance between the farmland and the residence is 35km, the transportation and the real estate leasing business have been engaged in the transportation and the real estate leasing business, but there is no objective evidence on this.

Related statutes

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Cases

2011Nu41962 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

Category XX

Defendant, Appellant

Head of the Office of Government

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Gudan1601 Decided October 31, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 16, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

June 13, 2012

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2010, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2010.

The imposition of KRW 000 shall be revoked.

Reasons

This court's decision is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Although the plaintiff asserts that he directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than 8 years in this court, the evidence submitted by the court of first instance is insufficient to acknowledge that fact even if the evidence submitted by the court of first instance is added to the statement of evidence Nos. 10 to 12 (including paper numbers) and the testimony by the witness KimA of this court, and there is no other evidence to prove

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.