logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2013. 06. 19. 선고 2013누19 판결
양도토지를 8년 이상 자경한 것으로 인정하기 어려움 [국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Jeju District Court 2012Guhap298 (2013.09)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High Court Decision 201J2559 ( December 30, 2011)

Title

It is difficult to recognize the transferred land as being a minor one for not less than eight years.

Summary

(1) It is difficult to recognize the transfer land as being self-sufficient for not less than eight years in view of the fact that the tax authorities confirmed that neighboring residents cultivated the land when conducting on-the-spot verification, alleged that they sold the direct cultivated fish plantation, but did not submit the details of financial transactions related to the price, operated the construction or transportation company, or registered as the representative director of the corporation, etc.

Cases

(Disposition) Revocation of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax, 2013Nu19

Plaintiff and appellant

The AAA

Defendant, Appellant

Head of Jeju Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Jeju District Court Decision 2012Guhap298 Decided January 9, 2013

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 5, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

June 19, 2013

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 defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00 against the plaintiff on March 2, 2011 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as follows, and additional evidence submitted at the trial, and it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had cultivated each of the instant land directly for not less than eight years, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same, except for the rejection of the entries and images of evidence Nos. 20-1 to Gap evidence No. 21, and the main text of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are applied.

2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow