Suwon District Court 201Gudan168 (O6, 2012)

early 2011 Middle 0479 ( October 14, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize farmland as having been self-sufficient for not less than eight years.

When a person intends to prove a self-defense with a written confirmation, etc. of a neighboring resident, it is insufficient to support the self-defense to the extent that he/she refers to the conclusion that he/she clearly support the self-defense itself and that it is reasonable to exclude the reduction or exemption by deeming that he/she has not cultivated farmland directly for at least eight years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Nu13537 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of the High Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Gudan168 Decided April 16, 2012

August 31, 2012

October 19, 2012

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on June 3, 2010 against the Plaintiff on June 3, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the judgment of the first instance except for the second to the fourth to sixteen parts of the fourth to sixteen parts of the judgment.

2. Parts in height:

In full view of all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff including evidence Nos. 17 and 18-1 and 2, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than eight years (in the event that the Plaintiff intends to prove self-defense by means of a statement or confirmation, etc. by a neighboring resident, the content of the statement must include specific facts that can clearly support the self-defense itself, such as methods of cultivation, contents and subject of work, frequency of work, etc., and the degree of mentioning the conclusion that it is sufficient to support the self-defense without a statement of specific facts. In full view of the aforementioned evidence and various circumstances, it appears that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case during the period of possession of the farmland of this case. Accordingly, the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is excluded, and the disposition of this case applying the rate of taxation of this case to non-business income tax as provided for in Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit