Incheon District Court 2012Gudan1799 (20 August 20, 2013)

Early High Court Decision 2012J 2317 (Law No. 112.06.29)

It cannot be deemed that a person engaged in agriculture at least 1/2 of the farming works or engaged in farming with his own labor, and thus does not constitute reduction or exemption of farmland for a period of eight years.

In light of the fact that a business of manufacturing aggregate land was operated, and the land of this case is indicated as a "lease" in the farmland ledger as to the land of this case, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on the land of this case at all times or cultivated or cultivated with his own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming work.

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2013Nu25780 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gudan1799 Decided August 20, 2013

July 18, 2014

August 29, 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 shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 10, 2012 on the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2011 shall be revoked.

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

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) On the second page, each entry in 21, the testimony of B of the witness at the trial, the fact-finding results and additions to the head of OO at the time of OO.

② On August 21, 2007, as of August 21, 2007, the fact that the land in this case was recorded as “lease” in the column for the cultivation division of the farmland ledger concerning the land in this case in Chapter 3, as of August 21, 2007, that as of March 20, 2009 and January 27, 201, the owner of the farmland in this case stated as “Lease,” and that as at January 20, 201, the head of the OOOO stated as the farmland ledger does not mean that the date of final confirmation of the cultivation, and that the owner of the land in the farmland ledger continues to engage in self-defination or lease until the date of change of records.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.