beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Ulsan District Court 2013Guhap1397 ( October 24, 2013)
Case Number of the previous trial
Appellate 2013 Schedule 1182 ( May 9, 2013)
Title
The reduction or exemption of substitute farmland which is not directly cultivated is justified.
Summary
(See the judgment of the court below) At the time of acquisition and holding of the transferred farmland, the plaintiff was the student status and military personnel status, and it cannot be deemed that he cultivated with 1/2 or more of his own labor as provided in Article 67 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, such as the confirmation of student status at the time of acquisition and holding of substitute farmland.
Related statutes
Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
Cases
2013Nu20738 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff and appellant
The United States of America
Defendant, Appellant
Head of Ulsan District Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Ulsan District Court Decision 2013Guhap1397 Decided October 24, 2013
Conclusion of Pleadings
May 14, 2014
Imposition of Judgment
May 28, 2014
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 imposition of capital gains tax OOOO on January 7, 2013 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the judgment of this court is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the entries in the evidence No. 4-C, No. 3 and No. 4-C, and the whole purport of the pleading No. 3 and No. 4-C, and the whole purport of the pleading No. 3, and the whole purport of the pleading No. 3, and therefore it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff basically repeats the same argument in the court of first instance even in the trial, and even if considering the allegations and grounds that the plaintiff partly supplemented in the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.