Gangnam branch support-2017-Gu Partnership-30413 (Law No. 17, 2018)

The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in the cultivation of crops in his own farmland at all times or have cultivated 1/2 or more of farming works with his own labor.

There is a distance from the behavior of those who are engaged in agriculture on their own farmland by frequently acquiring or transferring a large number of lands during the period of self-defense as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming work on his own farmland (the same as the judgment of the first instance).

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015)

(Chuncheon)Revocation of revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax on 2018Nu604

The United States of America

*The Director of the Tax Office

Gangnam Branch Court Decision 2017Guhap30413 decided May 17, 2018

August 20, 2018

September 17, 2018

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 disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 321,781,530 to the Plaintiff as of October 5, 2016 and the amount of KRW 228,741,060 to the Plaintiff as of October 5, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court was presented to this court, it is justifiable to find facts in the first instance court and determine. The reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the part of the first instance court’s reasoning. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land 1 and 2 for at least eight years pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the first instance court’s determination was based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, and the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was “leased Land” for 1 and 2 years from August 11, 200, and that most of the farmland located near the Plaintiff’s residence were purchased from the first instance court to the second instance court for 19 years from May 21, 2016, and that the Plaintiff did not directly investigate the farmland 1 and 2 years from the second instance court’s 19 years from the second instance court’s ruling.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim of this case is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.