Seoul High Court 2012Nu2674 (Seoul High Court 2012.06.27)

early 2010 Heavy1864 ( December 30, 2010)

(C) It is difficult to recognize that farmland equivalent to at least 1/2 of the previous farmland area has been cultivated among the substitute farmland.

(C) In light of the following: (a) In the case of a field investigation by the tax authority, the tax authority’s land for the farmer is merely a part of the trace, and most of the farmer were not able to find a trace of the farmer; and (b) it does not seem to have been inevitably cultivated due to flooding, such as where the content of the flood damage is not registered in detail, etc., it is deemed that the reduction or exemption is legitimate, since it is recognized

2012du16190 Such revocation as capital gains tax and additional dues, etc.

XX

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu2674 Decided June 27, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant constitutes Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final