Incheon District Court 2009Gudan352 (25 June 25, 2009)

early 208 Heavy3746 ( December 22, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that farmland was self-refised for 8 years or more;

It is difficult to believe the plaintiff's assertion in light of the fact that the plaintiff served as the representative director of the construction company during the period of self-reliance, the real estate rental business.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 112,630,000 for the plaintiffs on August 5, 2008 (" August 8, 2008 stated in the written complaint") is revoked, respectively.

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is the same as that for the judgment of the first instance, except for the following modifications, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. On August 5, 2008, 2008, 2008, 3rd to 17th to 18th, 2006, 2006, 3rd to 200, 3rd to 200, 3rd to 20, 3rd to 20, 3rd to 20, 3rd to 20, 3rd to 20, 3rd to 4rd to 4rd, 5rd to 5th to 200.

(b) there is no evidence of the 4-Exemption 3 conduct." The following shall be added:

In addition, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329, Feb. 9, 2006) provides that the term “a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland or growing or growing them with his own labor not less than half of farming work.” The above provision argues that each disposition of this case under Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is unlawful, since the above provision violates the principle of no taxation without delegation by law or beyond the scope delegated under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act by prescribing matters beyond the scope delegated by law.

As seen earlier, the direct cultivation of farmland must be proven by the person asserting it, and the land directly cultivated under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act includes not only the case in which he/she cultivates farmland, but also the case in which he/she cultivates land by means of employing another person under his/her responsibility and account (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu204, Jul. 8, 1986). However, in this case, the plaintiffs' claim is not accepted since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs cultivated the land of this case by means of his/her own possession or by employing another person under his/her responsibility and account, etc., and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim on a different premise is without merit.

C. The 7th page 7'p. 1584's "p. 583" is changed to "583".

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed due to the lack of grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and therefore all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.