Seoul High Court 2013Nu18027 ( December 18, 2013)

It is difficult to recognize land as being a direct self-defense for not less than eight years.

The fact-finding and the selection of evidence, which are based on such premise, belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The ground of appeal is merely disputing the fact-finding of the court below, and it cannot

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

2014Du1109. Revocation of revocation of imposition of transfer income tax

○ ○

○○ Head of tax office

Seoul High Court 2013Nu18027 ( December 18, 2013)

2014.05.16

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below is unlawful, since the plaintiff cultivated the land of this case directly as farmland for not less than eight years, it made an erroneous fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence and made a decision that the disposition of this case is lawful.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection of evidence, which is based on such premise, belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The ground of appeal is merely disputing the fact-finding of the lower court, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal. Therefore, the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles based on facts

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.