Busan District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-22894 (2018.06)

Appellate Court 2017-Divisions-4088 ( November 28, 2017)

A period exceeding 37 million won shall not be deemed a self-employed period.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) The period exceeding 37 million won cannot be deemed to be the period of self-defense, so the initial disposition that did not deduct the special tax amount of long-term possession by deeming the exclusion of self-defense and transfer of non-business

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on Self-Cultivating Farmland

2018Nu23190 (Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Transfer Income Tax)

AA

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

November 30, 2018

December 21, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The first instance court's decision shall be revoked around June 1, 2017 (the correction shall be made in accordance with the statement in subparagraph 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 1, 2017 (the correction shall be made in accordance with the statement in subparagraph 1). The first instance court's decision shall be revoked in excess of KRW 00,000,000 among the disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 0,000,000 imposed on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2017.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in this court are not significantly different from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance trial, and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion and the additional evidence presented in this court were reviewed again, the provisions of this case violated the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition, the limitation on delegated legislation, equal rights, freedom of occupation, property rights, and the Plaintiff’s self-determination period is less than eight years, and the Plaintiff’s self-determination period is less than eight years, and the Plaintiff’s application for the resumption of argument is justifiable (the Plaintiff submitted a reference document and filed an application for the resumption of argument in relation to the Plaintiff’s self-determination period after the closing of argument. The grounds cited as the grounds for the application for resumption of argument do not affect the above judgment that the Plaintiff’s self-determination period is less than eight years, and thus need not further

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.