Suwon District Court 2016Gudan6478 ( October 11, 2017)

Early High Court Decision 2015Du4156 ( November 11, 2015)

Whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land (whether to recognize reduction of and exemption from large land)

According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the party’s statement, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have directly cultivated the instant land, but there exists a justifiable reason to exempt the Plaintiff from penalty tax.

Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Seoul High Court 2017Nu34737 (No. 22, 2017)

leap*

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gudan6478 Decided January 11, 2017

6.01. 201

2, 2017.06

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on January 5, 2015 against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2015 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant rendered on January 5, 2015 to the plaintiff on January 5, 2013

The portion of the vested capital gains tax of KRW 000 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○ The 5th judgment of the first instance court "as the answer" in the 13th and 14th judgment shall be read as "as the front".

○ The 5th and 20th of the judgment of the first instance court "the result of the plaintiff's personal examination" is "the result of the plaintiff's personal examination of the first instance court".

The first instance court’s 6th sentence “ was registered as a business operator,” and the 3th sentence of the said 6th sentence were as follows. During the retention period of the instant land, the Plaintiff had registered as a business operator. The Plaintiff recorded an annual total sales amount of KRW 1.7 billion, which is less than KRW 800 million and less as indicated in the following table, to a large amount of KRW 1.7 billion. As such, insofar as the Plaintiff was operating two businesses, it is difficult to ordinarily engage in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on the instant land or growing or growing crops by carrying at least half of the farming work with his own labor.

○ The first-class through 7 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court are as follows.

After acquiring the instant land at the time of the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff was deemed to have been rice farmers before performing the farmland banking work on June 2012, 2012. However, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed to have been entrusted with rice paddys, frys, rice beers, and slopings, etc.; and (b) stated that such work was carried out by using machinery, such as Trackers, Emhs, and compacts. As can be seen, insofar as the Plaintiff: (a) took part in the instant land as a daily day; and (b) took part in the instant land to another person; and (c) took part in the instant farmland banking work, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated or cultivated agricultural products by taking one half or more of the farming work into his own labor force, as long as he had the Plaintiff use the machinery.

○ From the last day of the judgment of the first instance to the seventh day of the judgment.

The first instance court's 8th sentence to 17th sentence are as follows.

○ From June 2012 to May 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff continued to perform farmland banking and reinforcement discussions on the instant land from June 2012 to May 2013. From June 2012 to May 2013, the Plaintiff also recognized that the instant land did not depth crops (see, e.g., Plaintiff’s first instance trial result). From June 2012 to May 2013, the Plaintiff deleted the first 8th 18 to 9th 8th e.g., the instant land.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed in entirety as they are without merit.