It is difficult to recognize land as being valuable for at least eight years.

It is difficult to recognize that the land has been self-confisced for not less than eight years in light of the fact that the land was self-confiscated at the time of the purchase of the land, since it is possible to voluntarily prepare the document, that it cannot be objective evidence, that the company works or restaurants, etc. during the period of holding the land, and that according to the purchaser's statement

2012Guhap749 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Prostitution ¡¿ (leap) 】

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

October 9, 2012

November 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on January 3, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff acquired on December 31, 1970, and the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption to Non-Party 63.4/80 shares in the 273.4/110 square meters in the 00 m293m2 in the 000 m293m2 in the 293m2 in the 000 m293m2 in the 800 m2 in the same m3.4/800 in the 3m2 in the same m3m2 in the 1970m3m2 in the 110m2 in the 110m2 in the 1999, the 93.4/110 m2 in the 110m2 in the 110m3m2 in the 400 m2 in the 193m3m2, and each of the above m3m3m2 in the 2010m20.

B. As a result of the business audit conducted against the Defendant, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China decided that the land of this case is miscellaneous land, and that the land of this case 2 to 4 was used as a road and excluded from the application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax. Accordingly, on January 3, 2012, the Defendant competition and notification of KRW 00 of capital gains tax for 2010 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, and the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including household numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant land was cultivated by the Plaintiff’s labor force almost wholly from December 31, 1970 to August 18, 1975, after the Plaintiff completed military service, from August 18, 1975, and was cultivated by the Plaintiff’s wife and her mother’s labor force from August 18, 1975 to August 2003, and the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff did not own each of the instant land for at least eight years.

2) The Plaintiff, around November 2, 1999 and around June 8, 200, sold 00 m2,083 m2,00 m2,083 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2, which was cultivated together with the land No. 1 of this case, goes against the principle of trust protection.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff re-satisfyed each of the instant land for at least eight years

Pursuant to Articles 69(1) and 13 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010); and Article 66(1) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), each of the instant land has been cultivated directly for at least eight years from the time the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant land to the time of transfer thereof, while residing in the Si, Gun, Gu, or Gu adjacent thereto for at least eight years. "Direct farming" here means that the transferor is constantly engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on his own land, or cultivating or cultivating them with his own labor. The burden of proof is not sufficient for the Plaintiff, in light of the above legal principles, and there is no other evidence that the Plaintiff submitted evidence and evidence that the witness was included in Gap’s number No. 15 to 16.36.

O) On August 18, 1975, the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation, etc. as evidence to support the self-sufficiency of each of the lands of this case before the directors were directors at Ansan-si, and it is possible to prepare it at will, so it cannot be an objective evidence for the requirements of self-reliance of the Plaintiff.

O) On August 18, 1975, the Plaintiff moved to the PPdong in Ansan-si, while residing in Seoul, Mayang-si, etc., and had it in the FFF Seoul Office, etc., and thereafter there is no objective evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was admitted to the present agricultural cooperative on or before September 7, 2003, and again moved to the neighboring area of each of the instant land.

O Until August 24, 1992, leH, the Plaintiff’s third village, appears to have cultivated each of the instant lands until leH died.

O The Plaintiff, from October 24, 2003 to September 30, 2009, operated the restaurant with wife at OOri 000 on the port of Pakistan, from October 24, 2003 to September 30, 2009.

O According to the statement of KimGG that purchased each of the instant lands, and the instant land was infinite at the time of purchase.

o Even according to the content of satellite photographs taken on September 17, 2009 and the notification of performance of restoration to the original state for illegal diversion of farmland against the plaintiff, the land of this case 2 to 4 seems to have been used as the access road to the restaurant located in the Orith 000 Orith 000 on the port side of the Papju City.

2) Whether the principle of protection of trust violates the principle

It is insufficient to find that the entries in Gap and Gap evidence Nos. 17 through 19 (including household numbers) were cultivated as a whole with each of the instant land in the O00 OO 000 m2,653 m2,093 m2,093 m2,093 m2,000 m2,093 m2,000 as per each of the instant land in Pakistan, or that they were subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to fulfillment of self-defense requirements for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and even if there is a case where self-defense requirements are recognized as to each of the instant land, it is difficult to view that there was a public opinion by the defendant that the capital gains tax would be reduced or exempted regardless of whether the land in this case was actually self-defense or there was

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.