Suwon District Court2013Gudan1519 (27 September 27, 2013)

It is difficult to see that a direct cultivation has been made in view of the fact that the power supply of the land at issue is interrupted and that a third party leases and uses it.

In full view of the fact that the third party leased and used the key land, the power supply of the key land is prevented, and the claimant has been engaged in the manufacturing industry and wholesale and retail business during the period of holding the key land, it is difficult to see that the claimant was self-employed for not less than eight years.

Seoul High Court 2013Nu30348 Revocation of Disposition imposing capital gains tax

The two AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan1519 Decided September 27, 2013

on October 26, 2014

on 1, 2014

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 Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 70,538,120 on October 10, 201 against the Plaintiff on October 10, 201 shall be revoked.

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows. Thus, the reason for this court's decision is the same as that of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

The judgment of the first instance court, including the time when the plaintiff registered the business operator with respect to "B farm members", the employment relationship, the lease relationship with the land of this case, and the vinyl of this case for one year and two months, etc., were taken as to the facilities such as the plaintiff's land holding period (8 years and two months), their family relations, resident registration details, and the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for eight years or more, it is difficult to accept the contents of Gap evidence 1-1 to 14 (written confirmation of cultivation) submitted by this court in relation to the assertion that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for eight years or more, even if it is difficult to accept the remaining Gap evidence 2 to 7 (including the paper number), and the judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed.