beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013. 09. 06. 선고 2012누37762 판결

농지소재지에서 8년 이상 거주한 것으로 인정하기 어려움[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court 2012Guhap4204 ( November 16, 2012)

Case Number of the previous trial

early 201 Heavy 5143 (O24, 2012)

Title

It is difficult to recognize that he/she has resided for at least eight years in a location;

Summary

No provision shall apply to an area that falls under the relevant area at the time of commencement of cultivation, but does not fall under such area due to the reorganization of administrative districts, etc., if the administrative district has been dissolved and has been changed to another autonomous district.

Cases

2012Nu37762 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

AA

Defendant, Appellant

Head of the tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap4204 Decided November 16, 2012

Conclusion of Pleadings

July 23, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

September 6, 2013

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 shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing OOO on the Plaintiff on August 18, 2011 is revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act applies as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

In Part 4, Part 8 through 9 of the first instance court's 4, "the testimony of witness BB" is read as "the testimony of Gap 23, 26 (including paper numbers), and witness BB, and CCC 10 of the first instance court's 4, "each partial entry of evidence 10 of the first instance court's 22, 24, 25, and 27".

In addition, the following is added to the 5th sentence of the first instance court, 5th to 6th sentence.

[Plaintiffs, as of March 31, 1987, O apartment 41 O apartment 805 303 o-dong 405 o-dong 403 o-dong 403 o-gun O-gun 500 o- Ri 616 o-dong 405 o-gun o-gun 400 o-gun o-gun o-gun 500 o-ship o-ship o-ship o-ship 800 o-ship o-ship o-ship 616 o-ship 405 o-ship 80 o-ship o-ship 100 o-ship o-ship 16 o-ship o-ship 8 o-ship o-ship o-ship 16 o-ship o-ship o-ship 8 o-ship o-ship o-ship 1986 o-ship 14 o-ship.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case should be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.