Suwon District Court 2010Guhap17947 (2012.08)

early 2010 Heavy13 (Law No. 9, 20109)

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

It is difficult to recognize as being self-sufficient for not less than eight years in light of the fact that the organic farming law that has worked for a long time as a unit agricultural cooperative and that the organic farming law that requires a large number of works but is inappropriate for them to work for the unit agricultural cooperative, and there is no clear material proving the place of sales, etc. of crops cultivated by the organic farming law.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Nu8375 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

StateA

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap17947 Decided February 8, 2012

July 18, 2012

September 5, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

And Appellate paper

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on October 1, 2009 against the plaintiff on October 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

The reasons for the judgment of the court are as follows: (a) the first instance court's ruling is the same as the reasons for the first instance court's ruling with the exception of " October 1, 2009," 6th below 209, and (b) pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff asserts that the court also cultivated the land in this case directly in this court around 1984 or from 1985 to 8 years from 1985. However, according to the fact that the plaintiff worked for unit agricultural cooperatives, such as PP agricultural cooperatives from November 30, 1972 to February 24, 2001, and that the plaintiff had earned 00 won annual income from 1983 at the time of 1983, and that the plaintiff would normally be unable to prove that the land was used in the land in this case with the organic farming law for 20 years, and that it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff had been used in each of this case for 17 years agricultural cooperatives.