Suwon District Court-2013-Gu Group-10278 ( February 27, 2013)

A lawsuit with a lapse of the filing period shall be dismissed as unlawful.

The lawsuit of this case is dismissed as illegal after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Nu4899 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan10278 Decided September 27, 2013

June 25, 2014

July 16, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff 20O.O.O.O. shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasons for this part of the judgment are as follows: "20O.O.O.O. originally decided to be justified for the disposition of this case" among the '1. reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance', '20O.O.O.O.O.'. notice of the results of re-audit (hereinafter referred to as "the subsequent disposition of this case") with the content that the original disposition of this case is justified for the first time is delivered to the plaintiff 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.'., which added 'the grounds for recognition' to 'the statement of Nos. 12 and 13 (including each number)'. Thus, this is cited.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

Pursuant to Article 56(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013), Article 56(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013), and Article 51 of the Administrative Appeals Act, a claimant who received a notice of a subsequent disposition is prohibited from filing an administrative litigation within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the subsequent disposition pursuant to Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is interpreted to have filed an administrative litigation within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the subsequent disposition by the Tax Tribunal on the farmland of this case as part of the disposition disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du12514, Jun. 25, 2010).

3. Determination of an additional merit

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in this part. Furthermore, in light of the various circumstances cited by the court of first instance, the plaintiff and the plaintiff knowingly purchased a house adjacent to the land of this case at the same time as the plaintiff, while living together with the plaintiff while cultivating part of the land of this case as farmland for a long time, the testimony by the witness AA of the court of this case to the effect that the cultivation period of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's husband's land of this case is not less than 8 years, it is difficult to believe that the testimony by the witness BB of the court of this case to the effect that the cultivation period of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's husband's land of this case is more than 8 years, and the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff's land of this case constitutes the non-business land

4. Conclusion

The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is unlawful. On the other hand, the judgment of the first instance court dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim shall be revoked and the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.