beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Further determination 1) If the Plaintiff’s assertion submitted additional documents Nos. 14-1, 2, 15, and 16-1, 2, 15, and 16-1 of the Plaintiff’s evidence, and the inquiry reply about the fact-finding with respect to the plane captain of Busan Metropolitan City in the trial room, it is recognized that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land during the year 1998, 200, 209 (former five months), and 2013. Thus, if the Plaintiff’s self-defense was recognized in the first instance trial from 1999 and 2003 to 2008, the Plaintiff is deemed to fully meet the requirements for exemption from capital gains tax. (2) According to the health stand, Gap evidence No. 13-2, and Eul evidence No. 2-2 as to whether the Plaintiff cultivated in the year 198, each of the instant aircraft was parked at the time of photographing each of the images as provided by the evidence No. 2-2.
[Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff cultivated in 198 on the ground that there is no particular difference between the aerial photography taken in 1998 and the aerial photography taken in 1999. However, the 1999 cultivation was recognized by the images of No. 2-3 (the aerial photography taken in December 8, 1999). According to the above images, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff was growing the crops on the instant land in 199. Moreover, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff started growing the cattle on the instant land from the first instance court to the spring in 1999 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13-4, and No. 2-4 of the Evidence No. 2 of the 1999).
(3)