Gwangju District Court 2010Guhap979 ( October 15, 2010)

Examination transfer 2009-0246 ( December 07, 2009)

Reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax for self-farmland for 8 years;

It is difficult to see that farmland has been depreciated for not less than eight years while residing in a location of farmland, such as engaging in construction business.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 5,814,380 against the plaintiff on August 10, 2009 shall be revoked.

1 Case No. 1 Dispute and Judgment

The key issue of this case is whether the farmland of this case constitutes farmland cultivated by the plaintiff for not less than 8 years, and thus, the first instance court stated the Plaintiff’s first time of acquisition of the farmland of this case and period of self-defense as evidence that conforms to the Plaintiff’s argument, Gap’s 5th floor Gap’s 1 through 12, but all of them are written in advance as a written statement of residents nearby the farmland of this case’s seat, and only the signature, address, etc. of the statement are written in advance, and it is insufficient to verify objective facts only with the written statement. The Plaintiff’s resident registration abstract of this case’s resident registration abstract of this case’s resident registration abstract of this case’s farmland of this case’s 16th ○○-dong 62-5th 00, 1978, and it is without any objective evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff had resided in the farmland of this case for 190 years prior to liquidation of this case’s farmland of this case’s 9th 9th 16th 3 years.

2 cite a judgment of the first instance court

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: (a) additional evidence submitted at the trial and lack of recognition of the plaintiff's assertion by Gap's 1 through 6 and Gap 9, which are the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, (c) this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

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