Suwon District Court 2008Guhap3413 ( August 25, 2009)

Early High Court Decision 2007Du5066 (Law No. 85, 19)

Whether substitute farmland has been actually cultivated or not

According to photographs taken of substitute farmland, it is recognized that the farmland was not cultivated in substitute farmland.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 133,382,450 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 19 (including each number), and the fact-finding results on Gap Eup at the Namyang-si of this Court are added to the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, with the exception that the fact-finding results on Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 13 through 19 (including each number), and the fact-finding results on Gap Eup at the Namyang-si of this Court are insufficient to recognize facts alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, this Court

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.