Suwon District Court 201Gudan1601 ( October 31, 2011)

Early High Court 201J 0793 ( October 25, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.

It is difficult to recognize that not less than 1/2 of the farming work has been cultivated by his own labor in the transferred farmland in light of the fact that while residing in the city adjacent to the location of the farmland, the distance between the farmland and the residence is 35km, the transportation and the real estate leasing business have been engaged in the transportation and the real estate leasing business, but there is no objective evidence on this.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Nu41962 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Category XX

Head of the Office of Government

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Gudan1601 Decided October 31, 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 is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2010, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2010.

The imposition of KRW 000 shall be revoked.

This court's decision is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Although the plaintiff asserts that he directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than 8 years in this court, the evidence submitted by the court of first instance is insufficient to acknowledge that fact even if the evidence submitted by the court of first instance is added to the statement of evidence Nos. 10 to 12 (including paper numbers) and the testimony by the witness KimA of this court, and there is no other evidence to prove

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