Gwangju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-1301 (2018.05)

No person shall be deemed to have cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming work with his own labor;

It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff cultivated or cultivated not less than 1/2 of the farming work on the instant land using its own labor force, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Gwangju High Court 2018Nu5153 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

November 15, 2018

December 20, 2018

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 111,355,845 against the plaintiff on November 1, 2016 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows, and this is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text

Parts to be amended.

○○ Heading 7-8 part of the 2nd 7-8 (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 111,355,845 won are 111,35,840 won.

○○ The 3th page 13-14 part is referred to as “(2)” (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26959, Feb. 5, 2016; hereinafter the same).

The evidence 2, 5, 9, 2, 2, 4, 6, and 13, 2, and 17-24 hours a week as an English instructor (the plaintiff himself stated 3-4 days a week, the average lecture hours a week, 18.6 hours a week) are added. "The plaintiff needs to make preparations for lectures and move for lectures."

○ The following shall be added to the 5th page 8:

【E) The Plaintiff asserts that Maa, the spouse of which has been registered under his own name, actually operated Maa, a coffee store, frequency collection, and bicycle sales store, and submitted a confirmation letter of confirmation of facts, 00, 00, 00, 00, Ma-00, Ma-00, Ma-00, Ma-00, Ma-00. However, it is difficult to view that Ma-a, from November 7, 201 to November 10, 201, it is difficult to view that Ma-a, in light of the fact that Ma-a, with the Plaintiff’s testimony, it is difficult to solely take advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff’s business operator’s name, made an overall statement favorable to the Plaintiff at the trial, and that it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s testimony and profit-making from the Plaintiff’s business operator’s own name, and that it is difficult to see that all of the Plaintiff’s business operator’s testimony and profit-making.

F) The Plaintiff asserts that the land was occupied by dividing it with other co-owners and cultivated shot trees while occupying them. However, there is no agreement between the co-owners to own the specific part of the land of this case externally, ② there was no distinction between the co-owners of the land of this case at the time of filing an objection to the disposition of this case, ③ the Plaintiff’s reason for purchasing the land of this case with the co-owners’ co-ownership shares in the preparatory document dated June 4, 2018 was that the land of this case existed at the main passage, so there was no benefit from distinguishing the location of each land of this case. It is difficult to say that the construction of this case was impossible at the time, but to manage shot trees with the view to jointly managing them. ④ The Plaintiff’s attorney did not have a mutual title trust relation with the co-owners of the land of this case from the presiding judge of the first instance court on the date of the first instance trial, ⑤ it seems that there is no economic relation between the co-owners of the land of this case and the witness of this case.

G) According to the “Agricultural History Test and Research Report (No. 5), the Plaintiff asserts that the annual required time was 112.1 hours in cultivating a market room on the land of 10 ha (1,000 square meters) and that the Plaintiff was able to self-defluate the instant land while doing another work.”

① However, as seen earlier, at the time of the Defendant’s tax investigation, the Plaintiff’s family members, land owners, and village residents stated the statement (in particular, according to the Doa’s confirmation written prior to the instant disposition, co-owners were led to each actual farmer, and, whenever necessary, co-owners were engaged in performing their duties together with each other; the Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.