beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Changwon District Court 2013Guhap299 ( October 13, 2013)
Title
The disposition of exclusion from reduction or exemption is legitimate because it cannot be deemed that the substitute land was cultivated directly.
Summary
Considering the distance between the land and the place of residence and the income situation, it was difficult for a third party to directly cultivate a farmland in the land, and the fact that the third party who resides in the location of the land received subsidies for preserving rice income, and confirmed that the third party cultivated the land at the time of the on-site verification by the tax authority, it cannot be deemed that the substitute land was directly cultivated.
Related statutes
Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)
Cases
(C)The revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax, etc.
Plaintiff and appellant
IsaA
Defendant, Appellant
○ Head of tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Changwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap299 Decided August 13, 2013
Conclusion of Pleadings
April 24, 2014
Imposition of Judgment
May 29, 2014
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 00,000,000 and special rural development tax of KRW 0,000,000, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2012, shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reason why the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the statement of the first instance No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the testimony of KimB by the witness of the party KimB, and the second part of the second part of the judgment is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, since the court of first instance modifies the court's "the court of second part" to "the court of first instance", and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.