Daegu High Court 2012Nu2239 (No. 18, 2013)

early 201Gu5020 (Ob. 29, 2012)

(C) If it is impossible to recognize that he/she has resided in the previous farmland or does not meet the requirements of the size of the substitute farmland.

(C) A person who has leased a part of a house located in the previous farmland, but who has a son of ownership, or according to a written confirmation prepared by a neighboring resident, it cannot be recognized that he/she had resided in the previous farmland area because he/she could only have moved to his/her resident registration for the reduction and exemption of substitute farmland, and some of the substitute farmland is confirmed that a third party will live as a rice farmer, and therefore,

2013Du3993 Revocation of Disposition, etc. of Imposition of Capital Gains Tax

KimA

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2012Nu2239 Decided January 18, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below, and the grounds of appeal by the appellant are examined, and it is clear that the grounds of appeal by the appellant fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final