Incheon District Court 2013Gudan977 ( October 20, 2014)

2013 Heavy 0967

A high school student shall not be included in a period of eight years.

(1) In light of the fact that the absolute time for the Plaintiff to input the instant land into the cultivation is limited due to the time and studies sent at the school (the same as the judgment of the first instance), etc., it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was engaged in the instant land cultivation at all times or appropriated 1/2 or more of the said farming work with its own labor.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014Nu53058 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Gudan977 decided October 20, 2014

2014.09.03

oly 15, 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 Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should explain are especially emphasized by this court.

The decision of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, and such decision shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The assertion regarding self-defense for not less than eight years

The contents of "direct cultivation" under Article 66 (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act are as follows.

In light of the fact that the former farmland has been interpreted as including not only the case in which the plaintiff has cultivated himself but also the case in which the family members living or living together with the same household have cultivated as well as the case in which the plaintiff has cultivated the farmland, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff cultivated the farmland by collaboration with his parents, such as the plaintiff's parents living together with the same household after the acquisition of the land in this case constitutes a direct cultivation of the plaintiff.

2) The assertion on title trust

The plaintiff, the father of the non-party Kim ○, is the actual owner of the land in this case, and the plaintiff is nominal.

Only a person.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion regarding self-defense for at least eight years

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., Article 66 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, provides for the meaning of "direct cultivation" with delegation under Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the meaning of "regular work" and "self-working capacity" should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010; 2012Du19700, Dec. 27, 2012). Since Article 66 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for the purpose of "direct cultivation" with the authority of the court of first instance to specify the meaning of "direct cultivation", it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff did not directly engage in the cultivation of the farmland or his family, even if the plaintiff did not directly own own own own own own own or own own own own own own labor until it.

2) Determination on the assertion on title trust

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by this judgment, ① the Plaintiff exercised property rights, such as establishing a collateral security right on the instant land, and the circumstances where the Plaintiff used the proceeds for transferring the instant land, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have actually exercised ownership on the instant land; ② at the time of acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff was merely 12 years old, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any financial ability to cover the purchase fund. In light of the circumstances where the Plaintiff exercised property rights on the instant land, the Plaintiff appears to have received a donation for acquiring the instant land from other persons, such as his parents, etc., and ③ there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and his father Kim Young-young, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been merely a title trustee on

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.