Changwon District Court 2012Guhap1790 ( October 16, 2013)

Early High Court Decision 2012Nu20018 ( October 23, 2012)

Even if family members cultivated, if the plaintiff's own labor force was not appropriated for not less than 1/2 of the plaintiff's own labor force, it constitutes a reduction or exemption for 8 years.

Even if family members cultivated, they should have appropriated 1/2 or more of the farming work with their own labor, but there is no evidence that the plaintiff has appropriated 1/2 or more of the farming work with their own labor for at least eight years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 66 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Busan High Court (Capwon) 2013Nu1518 revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax.

The AAA

○ Head of tax office

March 6, 2013

March 27, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's additional disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 61,276,480 as of August 1, 201 and the imposition of penalty tax of KRW 9,903,120 as of May 6, 2013 shall be revoked, respectively, against the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's explanation on this case is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in addition to the second instance court's reasoning for the first instance court's judgment, and the second instance court's reasoning for the second instance court's judgment.

2. Parts in height:

No evidence exists to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was sharing the same livelihood with his father or mother, even if the Plaintiff cultivated the farmland in this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff was self-employed for not less than eight years. “B” family members, even if they cultivated the farmland in this case, shall be deemed to have cultivated directly by the Plaintiff that had been appropriated for not less than half of the farming work with the Plaintiff’s own labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19700, Dec. 27, 2012); and “No evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff appropriated not less than half of the farming work with the Plaintiff’s own labor for not less than eight years.”

3. Conclusion

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