Supreme Court-2017-Du-46424 (No. 21, 2017)

Cho High-2015-Seoul Government-1909 ( July 22, 2015)

As it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the instant land was cultivated directly, it does not meet the requirements for capital gains tax reduction or exemption.

In the vicinity of the instant land, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the instant land was cultivated directly by the labor force by residing in the vicinity of the instant land at all times in the cultivation of crops or by cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work with the labor force. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2017Du416

westO

OO Head of the tax office

July 12, 2018

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A retrial suit is allowed only when there exist grounds stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act as to the judgment subject to a retrial. Inasmuch as the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) do not fall under this, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful. Therefore, the instant lawsuit for retrial is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are borne by the losing party. It is so decided