Seoul High Court 2010Nu13069 ( October 27, 2010)

Cho High Court Decision 2006J3531 ( December 18, 2009)

(C) No person shall be deemed to have cultivated land directly.

(The main point of the judgment of the court below) Although registration of business has been made under the name of the husband, the husband has operated it, and the principal has breached his own interest, it is reasonable to view that the husband cultivated the farmland ledger and the rice income preservation direct payments.

2010Du2610 Revocation of imposition of transfer income tax

OO

○ Head of tax office

The Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu13069 Decided October 27, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal are not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per

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