Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Group-15412 ( November 30, 2016)

Cho High-2015-Seoul Government-1909 ( July 22, 2015)

As it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the instant land was cultivated directly, it does not meet the requirements for capital gains tax reduction or exemption.

In the vicinity of the instant land, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the instant land was cultivated directly by the labor force by residing in the vicinity of the instant land at all times in the cultivation of crops or by cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work with the labor force. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2017Nu32649

westO

OO Head of the tax office

April 4, 2017

May 2, 2017

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 28,623,360 against the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case shall be as follows:

In addition, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

○○ Judgment of the first instance court 3 10th one (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010) is written with the following parts:

[See Supreme Court Decision 2010Du423 Decided September 30, 2010. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff is a law or a judicial precedent disregarding the status of farming development, such as the main sentence of Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423 Decided September 30, 201. However, the purport of the above provision is to solve the problem that capital gains tax is reduced without actually engaging in farming, and the meaning of "direct farming" under Article 2 subparag. 2 subparag. 5 of the Farmland Act is the same as that of the self cultivation under Article 2 subparag. 2 subparag. 5 of the same Act of the same Act (a person engaged in agriculture regardless of his/her own labor ratio, a partial person engaged in agriculture regardless of his/her own labor ratio is recognized

○ ○ Judgment of the first instance court is to add ‘six evidence' (including evidence No. 31 to No. 36 submitted by the trial court) following the 3th day below.

○ The 5th written judgment of the first instance court, 'the 5th written judgment', 'the court', 'the court of first instance', shall be 'the court of first instance'.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.