beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-698 (Law No. 12, 2015)
Title
Since the farmland in this case does not meet the requirements for re- village and self-defense, it cannot be deemed that it is excluded from the land for non-business use.
Summary
(A) The Income Tax Act has the requirements for re- village and self-reliance based on whether farmland falls under non-business land, and the plaintiff who asserts it should prove that the non-business land is non-business land under the Income Tax Act.
Related statutes
Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act / [Scope of Non-business Land]
Cases
(State) Revocation of a disposition imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff
AA
Defendant
BB Director of the Tax Office
Conclusion of Pleadings
June 1, 2016
Imposition of Judgment
September 21, 2016
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
the Gu Office's place of service and place of service
The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000,000,000 on the Plaintiff on February 27, 2014 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where "209,080,23 won" of No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "209,080,234 won" as "209,080,234 won," and thus, it is not different from the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance, even considering the evidence added in the trial (it is not different from the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance, even considering the evidence added in the court of first instance). Furthermore, according to the evidence No. 14 submitted by the plaintiff at the court of first instance, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's medical institution, such as hospital, pharmacy, oriental medical clinic, dental clinic, etc., all of which are located in Seoul and Gyeonggi areas from January 1, 206 to June 30, 2014, using the medical institution located at the time the plaintiff was located in the farmland of this case for 8 years.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.