Incheon District Court-2015-Gu Group-575 ( October 06, 2015)

Whether the Plaintiff has excavated the land of this case

(1) The disposition of this case, based on the premise that the plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land of this case for not less than eight years, is lawful, and the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case is without merit.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Seoul High Court 2016Nu35269 Revocation of Disposition imposing capital gains tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

2015.99.8

oly 6, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

In Chapter 13, Paragraph 13 of Chapter 2, "In the objection to the instant disposition on October 16, 2014," "In the objection to the instant disposition on May 27, 2014, the decision was dismissed on July 11, 2014, and was dismissed on October 16, 2014."

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the second paragraph 20 is added to the "(including the evidence additionally submitted by the plaintiff at the trial)."

The following shall be added to the 7th page after the 5th page.

Although the witness EE stated that "the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case," when the plaintiff acquired the land of this case, he could not easily believe that "the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case" was the witness EE statement of this case that "the plaintiff, at the time of acquiring the land of this case with the plaintiff's husband, had the plaintiff purchased the land of this case on behalf of the plaintiff's mother (the husband of the witness) because the witness changed to purchase the land of this case, and the plaintiff's mother mainly cultivated the land of this case, and even though the plaintiff stated that "the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case after the birth of the plaintiff."

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.