Suwon District Court 2015Gudan32708 (20 May 20, 2016)

Early High Court Decision 2014J 1317 (No. 21, 2014)

It is difficult for the Plaintiff to reduce or exempt capital gains tax because it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s resident registration period at the seat of farmland is only zero months, the details of the purchase of fertilizers that can prove that he/she cultivated directly, and the current status of possession of agricultural machinery, etc., the disposition imposed by excluding the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for eight years is not erroneous.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2015Nu4985 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

*The Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan30708 Decided May 20, 2016

November 2, 2016

November 16, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

- 2-

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on November 4, 2014 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on November 4, 2014

The imposition of AA, AA, and AA(including additional taxes) shall be revoked (the date of the disposition stated in the claim shall be the error of error).

as above, it is corrected.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except that the pertinent matter in the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The 3rd parallel "1957................." shall be "1956.."

Each of the 0th 3th 5th 5th and 4th 8th 8th 1961 ", Jul. 21, 1961" shall be considered as " July 27, 1961", respectively. The last 3th 1st 3rd 1st 1st 1974 " February 25, 1974" shall be considered as " October 1, 1973". The following shall be added to the next 12th 4th 12th 194:

According to Article 66 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, if the cultivation period of the decedent is considered as the cultivation period of the heir, the heir should continue to cultivate the inherited farmland for not less than one year. In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff continued to cultivate the land in this case for not less than one year, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff cultivated the land in this case for a period of not less than one year, and the plaintiff's assertion that the cultivation period of

2. Conclusion

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