Suwon District Court 2010Guhap7605 ( October 27, 2011)

early 209 Heavy3022 (2010.03.09)

The disposition imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of forest trees that is not business income is legitimate.

(As in the judgment of the first instance court), in order to constitute a forest care business, the forest trees should be continuously and repeatedly produced to the extent that they can pursue a profit by felling or transferring them. Since it is insufficient to recognize that the instant forest trees were afforested to operate a forest care business or that the management of forest trees was conducted to operate a forest care business, the disposition imposing tax on deeming the transfer of forest trees as capital gains is legitimate.

2011Nu7788 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap7605 Decided January 27, 2011

September 7, 2011

October 19, 2011

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 636,692,90 won to the plaintiff on February 10, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court's ruling is as follows, and this Court's ruling is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the first instance court's decision 5, 'the fact that the defendant has operated singing practice room business' from December 11, 2006 to February 18, 2008, 'the fact that the defendant has operated singing practice room business (Evidence 7)'.

The following should be added in front of 'the fact recognized earlier' by the court of first instance 6th, which is the first 5th of the judgment.

The testimony of EB by the witness at the trial of the party, and EBB, in return for the management of each of the forest of this case from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is receiving approximately KRW 1 million to KRW 2 million each year, and when a forest fire occurs, the Plaintiff was informed of this fact, and the act of EB transferred teared trees, and the act of EB was done by EB, and the act of EB is likely to be deemed to be in excess of the general management act of the forest of this case, and to be in excess of the project, when considering the remuneration and activity he received.

O Article 51 of the Income Tax Act is the "Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act" that will be the "Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act."

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.