Seoul Administrative Court-2012-Gu Group-27308 ( August 23, 2013)

Since it is not possible to confirm the fact of self-reliance, it constitutes land for non-business

It is difficult to believe that the payment of expenses incurred in farming, or the sale or consumption of crops is unable to prove other than the letter of self-guarantee, and that the land has been self-satisfed in light of age, occupation, distance between farmland, total area of farmland, etc.

Article 95 (2) of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu26356 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KK

J Head of J Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan27308 decided

February 26, 2014

March 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's capital gains tax of KRW 16,828,130 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

(2) The disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows, and the reasoning of the first instance court's ruling is the same, except for adding the judgment on the plaintiff's newly raised argument at the trial. Thus, this court's ruling is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not receive a written notice of capital gains tax, which is national tax, from the Defendant, but the instant taxation disposition of capital gains tax was not effective since it received the written notice of local tax.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 8 and Eul evidence 4, the defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 16,828,130 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2012, and the plaintiff can be acknowledged that he received the notice on this date on September 6, 2012, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.