Seoul Administrative Court 2014Gudan10793 ( December 17, 2015)

Whether or not there has been a serious depreciation for at least eight years and whether the controversial land is farmland;

(1) It is insufficient to recognize that he had been engaged in cultivating crops for not less than 8 years or has cultivated not less than 1/2 of agricultural works by cultivating them with his own labor, and it is reasonable to deem that the real area is a house under the Income Tax Act where the entire area is actually used for residence, regardless of the area and purpose in the public record.

2016Nu30479 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

Head of △ District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan10793 decided December 17, 2015

July 13, 2016

August 17, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013, which was rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013

The imposition of 00 won and 00 won of the special rural development tax shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is identical to the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition of some of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

○ 9, 16 pages 16 are "the fact of recognition" as follows:

The records and the whole arguments in Gap evidence No. 18-1 and No. 2 are shown in the above facts of recognition.

The following facts recognized by the purport of this Act:

○ 9. 19. The following shall be added to the “facts 19.”

On April 17, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for a change of land category of the instant land to the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City 000 head on April 20, 2006, and changed to the warehouse site on April 20, 2006, and received compensation from the Central Land Expropriation Committee as a warehouse site which is not an orchard, and even in a lawsuit disputing the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, the Plaintiff recognized that the land category and objective utilization of the instant land were the site of the instant building (the use of the instant building as a residential building for the instant building is not deemed as the land site, and it does not constitute the site of the instant building).

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.