logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2011. 07. 13. 선고 2011누308 판결
농지대토로 인한 양도소득세를 감면의 ‘직접 경작’ 요건[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Chuncheon District Court Gangseo Branch Branch 2010Guhap871 ( October 26, 2011)

Case Number of the previous trial

early 2010 Heavy1940 ( October 24, 2010)

Title

Requirements for direct cultivation of capital gains tax due to substitute land for farmland.

Summary

(1) In order to reduce capital gains tax due to the substitute land for farmland, it is reasonable to view that the previous land should be "direct cultivation" at the time of the transfer of the previous land, and it cannot be interpreted that the previous land is included in "large land for cultivation" if it is not cultivated directly at the time of the transfer, even though it has been growing for at least three years in total before the transfer of the previous land.

Cases

(Chuncheon)Revocation of a disposition imposing capital gains tax of 2011Nu308

Plaintiff and appellant

KimA

Defendant, Appellant

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap871 Decided April 26, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 29, 2011

Imposition of Judgment

July 13, 201

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. 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 39,714,870 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2009 by the defendant shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it can be accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Consultations

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow