Daegu District Court 201Guhap4529 (27 June 2012)

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0183 (Law No. 26, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize that farmland has been self-covered for not less than eight years.

(1) It is insufficient to recognize that direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. have been directly cultivated for a period of farmland ownership in full view of the following: (a) the receipt by a third party; (b) the preparation of a certificate that the third party cultivated the farmland at the time of the investigation by the tax authority; and (c) the consultation on compensation for farming losses at the time of expropriation with a third party

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Nu1632 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Park XX

Head of the Gu Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 201Guhap4529 Decided June 27, 2012

October 19, 2012

November 2, 2012

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 defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the plaintiff on June 17, 2011.

The court's reasoning concerning this case is that part of June 15, 201 of the second 8th 201 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the relative of the plaintiff"; part of December 31, 201 of the 8th 8th 201 ; and part of the 16th 16th 16th 16th 201 ; "the part of the 16th 16th 2nd 2nd 2nd 8th 201 ; it is registered as a loan business operator; the 2nd 8th 2nd 2nd 8th 201 ; the 2nd 4th 20th 2nd 8th 8th 201 ; the 3rd 16th 2nd 2nd 201 ; and the 3nd 420th 2nd 3rd 20 of the Civil Procedure Act."

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.