Gwangju District Court 2008Guhap1856 ( October 14, 2009)

early 2008 Mine045 (Ob. 28, 2008)

As a result of verification by the airline, no farmland shall be deemed farmland;

항공사진을 보면 이 사건 토지는 주변 농경지와 확연히 다른 형태를 보이고 있는 반면 그 앞쪽 바다의 뻘과 유사한 형태를 보이고 있어, 당시 이미 바닷물이 침수되어 농경지로 이용되지 못하였을 개연성이 높아 보이므로 자경사실을 인정할 수 없음

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

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 100,000,000 against the plaintiff on June 13, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

1. Dispute over the instant case and recognition for the judgment of the first instance;

이 사건의 쟁점은, 원고가 1989년부터 2006년까지 기간 중 적어도 8년 이상 전남 무안군 ★★면 ☆☆리 1240-1 답 1,554㎡' 같은 리 1240-2 전 7,998㎡, 같은 리 1240-3 답 1,050㎡, 같은 리 1240-6 전 498㎡의 토지(이하, 이 사건 각 토지라 한다)를 직접 경작하였는지 여부, 즉 이 사건 각 토지가 조세특례제한법 제69조 제1항이 규정하고

It is whether it falls under ‘self-farmland' for more than eight years.

As to this, the first instance court's statement Nos. 10-3 through 7, Gap evidence No. 11-1-4, Gap evidence No. 15-1, and Eul evidence No. 2 can be viewed as evidence of the fact that the plaintiff was a farmer after 2000, even before 2000, it cannot be evidence of the fact that the land of this case was involved, and even before 2000, it is consistent with the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was directly a farmer in each of the lands of this case. The statement No. 9-1, witness No. 1, witness No. 1, and witness No. 3 were believed to believe in the light of the video of Eul evidence No. 3, and each testimony of high financial resources was insufficient to acknowledge the facts alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, the first instance court's determination that each of the lands of this case constitutes "self-farmland" under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the plaintiff's new assertion and supplemental evidence presented by the first instance court.

Therefore, the reasoning for this court's ruling is as follows. It added to the new argument that had been raised in the court of first instance, and excluded each statement of No. 1, No. 20-1, and No. 20-2, which is difficult to believe the content in light of the video of No. 13 as additional evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the result of appraisal of B/C as to B/C, and the result of appraisal of B/C, each of which is subsequent to the video of No. 19 and No. 21 of the first court's ruling, and the result of appraisal of B/C, which is the same as the entry of the reasoning for the first court's ruling, except for the video of No. 3 and No. 13 of the first court's ruling, and the same as the entry of wetlands that is similar to the fourth and second parallel immediately after the second court's ruling.

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserted that, even if the aerial photography taken around June 1994 (No. 13 evidence No. 13) and the aerial photography taken around March 200 (No. 16-3), the banks located between each land and the sea of this case without any damage. Thus, even before 2000, the results of the court's appraisal request on Balebalegalegalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgsgalgalging from around 200 to around 100, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's appraisal request from around 200 to the 196thalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgsgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgalgsgalgalgalginggalgalgalg.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance.