Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap1892 (2012.05.04)

Early High Court Decision 201Du1726 ( October 23, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.

In light of the fact that a person works as a public official (as in the judgment of the court of first instance) and a person works on the land five times a month, but in the case of agricultural machinery necessary, such as an incidental work, a frying machine and a rice fryer, etc., he shall not be deemed to have cultivated at least half of the agricultural work with his own labor, in light of the fact that he paid money to another person for fertilizers or agricultural chemicals roots;

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

(Chuncheon)Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax;

Yellow AA

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Guhap1892 Decided May 4, 2012

September 12, 2012

September 26, 2012

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 defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on December 1, 2010 against the plaintiff on December 1, 201.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except that the third party court's first instance court's first instance court's third party's fourth to Eleven is changed as follows, and therefore, it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part that was changed by this court; and

The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law and taxation. Since it is applied not only to cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to cases meeting the requirements for non-taxation and tax exemption, it is not allowed to extend or analogically interpret the non-taxation requirements or requirements for taxpayers without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 205Du15021, Jul. 12, 2007). The legislative purpose of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) is to reduce the tax burden following the transfer of farmland to 100, 200, 300, 100, 2000, 2000, 2000, 300,000, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000).

We examine whether the plaintiff is engaged in the "direct cultivation", that is, the cultivation of crops or perennial plants in the land in this case, and whether the plaintiff has cultivated or cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming works with his own labor (in light of the form and system of Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, in the case of a transfer income tax imposition case under the ordinary tax rate, and in the case of a transfer income tax imposition case under the general tax rate, and in the case of a transfer income tax transferred while residing in the location of the land in this case for at least eight years, the person liable to pay tax exemption for the transfer income tax pursuant to the above provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 202Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002; 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 199).

3. Conclusion

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