Suwon District Court 201Guhap3488 (No. 21, 2011)

early 2010 Heavy1387 ( December 30, 2010)

land is not directly cultivated and constitutes land for non-business use.

(1) It can be recognized that the land was not cultivated directly in light of the following: (a) there was no farming shed and no wood wholesale business; (b) there was no harvested material from the land in a considerable area; and (c) the purpose of purchasing the land is to divert the farmland to establish a factory; and (d) it constitutes the land for non-business use.

Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act

2011Nu38317. Revocation of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax or tax rate

XX

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3488 Decided September 21, 2011

May 16, 2012

June 13, 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 defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on September 1, 2009 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From the fourth to the second half, the following shall be taken into account in full under the O3th below.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land (including the period exceeding two years from the transfer date and the period exceeding one year from the three years immediately preceding the transfer date) and the testimony or image of Gap Nos. 4, 5, 9 through 14 (including the serial number) and Eul’s testimony of the first instance trial witness is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land, in view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s current status of possession of agricultural machinery and the details of the purchase of fertilizers and the details of the purchase of fertilizers were not inquired (Evidence No. 1 and Eul No. 4); and (b) the Plaintiff’s testimony of the Plaintiff for the purpose of purchasing the instant land was for the purpose of establishing a factory by diverting farmland (Evidence No. 1).

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.