beta
(영문) 대전고등법원 2018.07.12 2018누10802

양도소득세부과처분취소

Text

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.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in this Court while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted to the court of first instance and this court are examined, the fact-finding and the determination of the first instance court are justified). 2. The part which was cited or added to the second instance

A. Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “A resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland, or cultivating or cultivating more than half of the farming work with his/her own labor,” as “a resident is engaged in cultivating or growing them by using his/her own labor” (Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act cannot be deemed as including a case where a resident employs another person under his/her responsibility and calculation, or causes a family living or living together with his/her family members to cultivate them, and the meaning of “direct farming” shall be construed as “a person who takes charge of one half or more of the farming work” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19700, Dec. 27, 2012).”

In addition, 1) The main point of the argument of the plaintiff in the trial is the preliminary determination as to the plaintiff's argument in the trial. Even if the plaintiff does not meet the requirements for self-sufficiency for at least eight years, he acquired the land in this case from around 1998 to at least three years in the five years immediately preceding the transfer date ( November 18, 2013) and 2 years in each of the three years in this case.