beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Suwon District Court-2017-Guhap-7014 ( April 12, 2018)
Title
Revocation of disposition imposing capital gains tax
Summary
At the same time, it is difficult to regard 1/2 or more of the farming work to have been cultivated with his own labor while engaging in an occupation for which earned income or business income may accrue.
Related statutes
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)
Cases
2018Nu42964 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff and appellant
IsaA
Defendant, Appellant
BB Director of the Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap70114 Decided December 12, 2018
Conclusion of Pleadings
on January 23, 2018
Imposition of Judgment
on October 018 06, 201
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 78,911,030 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2017 by the Defendant shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Details to be added; and
○ Not less than 4 lines below 3 lines:
“The Plaintiff continued to receive money fromCC as listed below.
(unit: Won)
○ 4 Up to 1,2 lines / [based grounds for recognition] / Each of sub-paragraphs 6, 7-1 through 5 of sub-paragraphs 7.
“Entry” shall be added.
○ 4,5 lines at the bottom of the 5th, “the fact that ...... has accrued business income”, the following:
shall be added.
“Around March 2003 to November 2007, the Plaintiff continued to receive money in or out of KRW 2 million each month.
【Fact】
○ 6.6. The part of “Ap. 6, 36.” with “Ap. 6, 36 through 50,” with “Ap. 6, 36.”
3. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.