Ulsan District Court 2013Guhap1380 ( October 24, 2013)

Cho High Court Decision 2013 Deputy 183 (24 April 2013)

Even though the mother who is in military service and university students have been engaged in farming activities while attending the school, it is not directly cultivated in farmland.

(1)It is apparent in light of the empirical rule that a person could not directly cultivate farmland at the seat of the State while serving in the military, and it cannot be deemed that he/she directly cultivated farmland, i.e., that he/she was a mother who could not directly cultivate farmland at the seat of the State during his/her military service, even before and after his/her expulsion from a military university.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Busan High Court 2013Nu20721 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The United States of America

D Head of the tax office

Ulsan District Court Decision 2013Guhap1380 Decided October 24, 2013

May 14, 2014

May 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 against the Plaintiff on January 7, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment made by the court in this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the plaintiff basically repeats the same argument in the court of first instance. Thus, even if the plaintiff examines the allegations and reasons that have been partially supplemented in the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is just, and it is dismissed.