Seoul High Court 2012Nu22579 (2013.05.01)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do1622 (No. 08, 2011)

(C) Since the land was not directly cultivated because it was not residing in the Republic of Korea, it constitutes the land for non-business use.

In light of the fact that the land falls under the land for non-business because it was not cultivated directly by the plaintiff due to the fact that the land was not cultivated by the plaintiff because it had been resided in the United States as a summary of the original state (the original state) in the United States and was not cultivated directly in the Republic of Korea, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer income has no possibility to be

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

2013Du12157 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

South AustriaA

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu22579 Decided May 1, 2013

October 11, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the argument on the grounds of appeal by the appellant falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per