Changwon District Court-2014-Gu 20665 ( October 02, 2014)

It is difficult to recognize as having cultivated farmland directly for not less than eight years.

In light of the fact that the application for direct payments compensating for rice income, etc., registered by another person as the actual cultivator, and the fact that the details of expenses paid for the cultivation of the instant land are not confirmed in preparation for the area of the transferred land, etc., it is difficult to recognize that it has been self-sufficient for not less than eight years in view of the fact that the document prepared a certificate of vicarious cultivation while

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(C)The revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax, etc.

OO

O Head of tax office

Changwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap20665 Decided October 2, 2014

May 20, 2015

June 3, 2015

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’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (it is not different from the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance, even considering the evidence additionally submitted by the plaintiff in the trial), Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2 Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.