beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015. 05. 06. 선고 2014누61738 판결

근로소득이 있는 점 등에 비추어 영농자녀 요건을 갖추었다고 볼 수 없음[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court 2013Guu12257 (Law No. 21, 2014)

Title

No earned income shall be deemed to meet the requirements for farming children in light of the fact that there are earned income;

Summary

Since it is difficult to see that farming children meet the requirements for farming children in light of the purpose of legislation of exemption and reduction of gift tax on the farmland donated to farming children, the fact that the claimant has earned income as regular workers, there is no error

Cases

2014Nu61738 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Plaintiff and appellant

SAA

Defendant, Appellant

The director of the tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap12257 Decided August 21, 2014

Conclusion of Pleadings

April 15, 2015

Imposition of Judgment

May 6, 2015

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 disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 97,439,280 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the dismissal of the following matters among the judgments of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The ○○ 2 side 13 side 13 side 13 side 1. "6."

○ 7 pages 88,453,289 "17,88,79" and "220,696,756" shall be read as "176,808,790" and "180,047,014" in the second place of the head of the first place.

○ 7 pages, the phrase “one-scale large-scale electric power plant” is as follows: “Irre, other than the farmland of this case, the farmland of this case has a considerable area of farmland stated as an additional cultivation of the plaintiff on the farmland ledger.”

2. Conclusion

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