Incheon District Court 2013Gudan380 ( November 05, 2013)

It can not be deemed that the farmland at issue was re-established or re-developed for more than eight years.

(1) In full view of the fact that another person received subsidies for preserving rice income, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that a person directly cultivated a rice farm and there is no evidence to prove that the person directly cultivated the land.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2013Nu51727 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Gudan380 Decided November 25, 2013

December 23, 2014

February 16, 2015

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 on May 21, 2012, and the defendant revoked the imposition of ○○○○○○○○ (including additional tax ○○○○○) and ○○○○○○ (including additional tax ○○○○○) on the plaintiff on May 21, 2012.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows: (a) there was no difference in the health of the fourth 16th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th of the judgment of the court of first th th th th th th th th th th th th th

2. The addition;

According to the results of the request for the examination of medical records for the head of the ○ University Hospital, KimA had a chronic pulmonary disease prior to that on August 21, 2006, while KimA had a radioactive photograph and a radioactive rupture MRI record at the time of ○○ Hospital on July 28, 2002, there are opinions of knee, knee, hne, hume, hume, hume, hume, hume, and hume hume hume hume hume, but there are no records of diagnosis or treatment, it is presumed that there was no records of the subsequent examination or treatment. However, it is difficult to determine whether there was a chronic pulmonary disease prior to that prior to that due to the examination of the function performed on August 21, 2006, because it cannot be deemed that the end-of-life prosecutor conforms with the patient's symptoms or labor ability, making it difficult to determine whether it interfere with physical labor).

3. Conclusion

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