Suwon District Court 2012Guhap1896 ( October 15, 2013)

Any disposition that refuses a request for correction made by applying the special deduction for long-term possession by deeming it as land for non-business use is justifiable.

The details of authorization after the expiration of the period for authorization of a forest management plan are not verified, and the rejection of a request for correction by applying the special deduction for long-term holding of land as non-business land is reasonable.

2013Nu5274 Revocation of revocation of a request for rectification of global income tax

EAA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap1896 Decided January 15, 2013

August 29, 2013

September 12, 2013

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 rejection disposition against the plaintiff on March 7, 201 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this court's explanation is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "Additional Acts and subordinate statutes attached to this decision" to "attached Form 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act" to "the fact that it was designated as a preserved mountainous district on December 30, 202" of the 5th 12th 12th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 1983 as "the fact that it was designated as a preserved mountainous district on October 21, 1983" as "the fact that it was designated as a preserved mountainous district on October 21, 1983."

2. The plaintiff also asserts that ① although the ten-year forest management plan for the forest of this case was approved, the forest of this case continues to be in operation in accordance with the contents of the original forest management plan, and that the forest of this case does not constitute the forest of this case on the sole ground that the new forest management plan was not approved, the substance over form principle is against the substance over form principle, and ② insofar as the forest of this case was designated as the forest of this case, the forest of this case should be deemed to have been in operation under the supervision of the

However, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is premised on the fact that the forest project of this case is in progress in accordance with the approval of the initial forest management plan, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. ② The above assertion does not have a reasonable ground to consider it as being a forest project regardless of whether the forest project of this case was implemented in the forest of this case solely on the fact that it was designated as the forest promotion area. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit

3. If so, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the appeal filed by the plaintiff is rejected as it is without merit.