Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan4190 ( October 24, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do3164 ( November 10, 2011)

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that a trustee is a trustee and there is no direct cultivation, a disposition to exclude the reduction of self-owned farmland is legitimate.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The disposition that did not reduce capital gains tax on self-owned farmland is legitimate, since it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff cultivated the land directly with no evidence to support the assertion that the person is not the title trustee and the actual owner is the owner of the land.

2012Nu25714 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

apAAA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan4190 decided July 24, 2012

May 1, 2013

May 29, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2008 and special rural development tax of 000 won for the Plaintiff on June 1, 201 shall be revoked.

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: " June 15, 201, which will be the second fifth fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance", "on June 1, 2011," and "from the third to the next fifth of the following five years (the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the plaintiff's father directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to recognize it)"; therefore, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff also claims that the land of this case was trusted in title by the plaintiff's father. However, even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the court of first instance shows witness testimony of the court of first instance, it is insufficient to accept the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to recognize it otherwise. The judgment of the first instance is justified in all appeals by the plaintiff.