Suwon District Court 201Mo6364, 2012.05.10

Early High Court Decision 2010Du1815 ( October 10, 201)

It is difficult to recognize that the previous and substitute farmland was cultivated directly.

(At the same time as the judgment of the first instance court) The main business is to be deemed to have been engaged in the restaurant business and to have a considerable amount of revenue through the operation of the restaurant, and there is no clear explanation as to how the previous and substitute farmland had been cultivated at the same time, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the farmland was cultivated directly in light of the fact that the previous and substitute farmland was not registered in the farmland ledger.

2012Nu18563 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

KimAAAA

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap6364 Decided May 10, 2012

April 30, 2013

May 31, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on February 5, 2010 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the addition or dismissal as stated in paragraph (2) below, and it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

• Chapter 5 of the first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court' and

(B) On the other hand, the testimony of Gap evidence 14, Eul evidence 3 to 8 (including each number), and witness KimO's testimony

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.