Case Number of the previous trial
Seocho 2014 Daejeon District Court Decision 1380 ( October 23, 2014)
Title
The plaintiff cannot be deemed as a regular high school teacher who has cultivated with the plaintiff's labor force for not less than 8 years.
Summary
The Plaintiff, as a regular high school teacher, was attending a 2007-2008 educational graduate school, was 1 South and North women under the chain, and for not less than 8 years in consideration of the entries in the farmland ledger, etc., the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated or cultivated at least 1/2 of the farming work with the Plaintiff’s labor force.
Related statutes
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
Cases
2014 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax, etc.
Plaintiff
KoreaA
Defendant
Daejeon director of the tax office
Conclusion of Pleadings
January 23, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
February 27, 2015
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant’s imposition of transfer income tax (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 15, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 275 m2,288 m2,000 m277 m277 m277 m2,000 m277 m2,000 m275 m2,000 m2,000 m277 m277 m277 of the same Ri on June 9, 2004; and on June 17, 2004, m279 m279 m274 m2,174 m279 m279 m279 m2,000 m2,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”), and transferred the instant land to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2012.
B. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax with the Defendant on the ground of one’s own background for at least eight years, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption, and on November 1, 2013, imposed a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff in 2012 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, 3, Eul evidence 5-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
At the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land, OO 274, 275 land was planted by large tree, and 276, 277 land was planted by large tree, and 278,279 land was planted by large tree for 3 years. While the Plaintiff was unable to plant trees originally planted for 3 years, there was no harvest due to old and old collection. The Plaintiff changed the form and quality of the instant land, and planted seedlings, such as large tree, knish, flish, lar tree, night tree, flar tree, and flar tree. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of Gap evidence 25, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4 (including each number of evidence Nos. 3 and 4), and the entire arguments, the plaintiff served as a regular teacher at the DD Female High School located in Daejeon for the retention period of the land in this case, i.e., the plaintiff served as a regular teacher at the DD Female High School located in Daejeon for the retention period of the land in this case.
The Plaintiff’s spouse’s E was enrolled in the Korean Intellectual Property Office located in Daejeon in 2004-209, and worked in the FF Association located in Seoul in 2010-2012. The Plaintiff and the E had three children of 1 South and North Korea (each 1988, 1990, 192, 195) between the Plaintiff and the E, and the O276, 277 were deleted on July 20, 2005, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize that there were 3G 1 and 3G 275, 278, 279 were less than 1 and more than 3G 1 and 3G 3G 278, 279 were less than 1 and there were no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had cultivated or 4G 3G 1 and 3G 278, 279 were less than 3G 1 and less than 3G 3G 5 and 278.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.