Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Group-6564 (2018.07)

Whether or not the plaintiff has maintained the land at issue for 8 years or longer

(1) The plaintiff's assertion is entirely not reasonable, since there is a lack of grounds to deem that the plaintiff had cultivated or cultivated the plaintiff with 1/2 or more of his own labor.

2018Nu65370 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Gudan6564 Decided 2018.07

2019.03.13

2019.04.10

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of KRW 616,57,566 (including additional taxes) of capital gains tax for the year 2015 on July 1, 2016 exceeds KRW 206,59,318, and the imposition of KRW 38,297,820 of capital gains tax for the year 2015 against the plaintiff shall be revoked on July 19, 2017.

1. Quotation and revision of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

Part 5 of the decision of the first instance court, Part 8 "B" in Part 5 of the decision of the first instance court shall be read as "B", and the 6th 12 "CC 12" shall be deleted.

○ The testimony of DD type 16 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court is "EI's testimony".

○ The following shall be added to the 7th sentence of the first instance court. 18th sentence.”

On the other hand, on April 10, 2008, a public official belonging to the king-si conducted an on-site business trip to the land of this case, and then prepared a business trip letter stating that "the land of this case is growing in eight greenhouses, such as selling and selling losses, etc.". According to the contents of the business trip letter, the plaintiff seems to have leased the land of this case to a person who cultivates flowers even around 2008, and does not seem to have been engaged in agriculture (such as farming of crops, such as drilling, wave, and worship) as argued by the plaintiff in the land of this case.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As a result, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.