Chuncheon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-221 ( October 20, 2017)

Cho-2015-China-5031 (2016.04)

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) The burden of proving whether or not the self-defensive is self-defensive in the reduction and exemption of eight years

(The same as the judgment of the first instance court) The laws and regulations on the requirements for non-taxation or reduction should be strictly interpreted. In this regard, the burden of proving the existence of the self-taxation or reduction in 8 years and the existence of the self-sufficiency or reduction in large land is borne by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff cannot be fully proven

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Substitute Land for Farmland

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

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2016Guhap221 Decided January 20, 2017

June 19, 2017

July 17, 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 101,302,678 against the plaintiff on January 5, 2016 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize a violation of the principle of trust protection because it is unclear whether the plaintiff made an answer to the reduction of capital gains tax (such as how the plaintiff made a registration of business with his domicile in ○○, etc.) by asking the public officials belonging to the defendant for any content of this case (such as explaining the circumstance that the plaintiff made a registration of business with his domicile in ○○, etc.), and thus, by the main text of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

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