Seoul High Court 2013Nu51727 (Law No. 16, 2015)

(C) No person shall be deemed to have re-established or re-developed the farmland in dispute for at least eight years.

In full view of the fact that other persons received subsidies for preserving rice income, there is insufficient evidence to support the direct farming of rice products, and there is no evidence to support the direct farming of land.

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

2015Du39927 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

the director of the tax office of Western

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu51727 Decided 16, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Final Appeal, since the petition of appeal filed by the Plaintiff did not state the grounds for appeal and the appellate brief was not filed within the statutory period, it is so decided as