Daejeon District Court 201Guhap4123, 20127.11

Cho High 201 Jeon 1938 (Law No. 105, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize the transferred land as being of gross importance for not less than eight years.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, it seems that the main occupation of an insurance company after the acquisition of land was an employee of the insurance company, and the main occupation of a rice farmer was being paid wages, and it seems that the rice farmer had been engaged in most mechanical works instead of others, but it is difficult to view that the rice farmer had cultivated 1/2 or more of the agricultural works with his own labor

2012Nu1790 Revocation of the imposition disposition, etc. of capital gains tax

XX Kim

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon District Court Decision 201Guhap4123 Decided July 11, 2012

December 13, 2012

January 10, 2013

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. Each imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won on January 1, 201 and special rural development tax of 000 won on February 17, 2011 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: Gap evidence No. 10 among the additional evidence submitted in order to support the plaintiff's assertion that "at the trial, the plaintiff has been cut down for not less than 8 years" was prepared after the disposition of this case was issued in the name of the oil refining operator KimA, and its contents are merely the fact that the plaintiff has preserved the past rice and has recorded an insignificant volume. This court rejected Gap evidence No. 9 because it is difficult to believe the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion even if it is stated, since Gap evidence No. 9 added the judgment that is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion, it cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Conclusion

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