Gwangju District Court-2015-Guhap-349 ( October 28, 2016)

The agreement on the land which was concluded shall be terminated, but it shall not be deemed to have been actually owned, and it shall not be deemed assets excluded from unregistered transfer assets.

(1) The land within the land transaction permission zone was canceled after the purchase agreement was made, but the purchase price was paid in full and was actually owned by establishing the establishment of the mortgage registration of neighboring land. Since the full amount of the land compensation was received, it constitutes unregistered transfer.

2016Nu3399 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Only landscape trees for each land are planted for landscaping purposes, and each land is used for landscaping purposes;

수목과 그 묘'遲�재배지인 농지로 볼 수 없음은 앞서 살핀 바와 같으므로, 원고의 위

It is also difficult to accept any argument.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.

As such, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

section 3.

AA

○ Head of tax office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Guhap349 Decided January 28, 2016

2016.29

November 10, 2016

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 transferred to each of the plaintiffs on 200○. ○. ○. ○○ to each of the plaintiffs.

The imposition of the income tax ○○○○ shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason for the ruling of the party is as follows, except for the addition of the following "the part of the judgment of the court of first instance", and therefore, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff alleged that each of the instant lands was farmland since it was created in accordance with the purpose of the development project for the development project for the development project for the village for the development of the electric power resource in a rural community, but whether it is farmland or whether it is farmland is determined depending on whether it is actually used as the farmland or the land for the development project for the development of the electric power resource village, and even if each of the instant lands was created in accordance with the purpose of the development project for the development project for the development project for the development of the electric power resource village, such circumstance alone does not constitute farmland, and thus,

B. The Plaintiff asserted that each of the instant lands should be considered farmland as a land temporary closure, but at the time when the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant lands to AA Village, a limited company.