Whether Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Self-Cultivating Farmland) is applicable.

There is no objective evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff operated a pharmacy during the period in which the Plaintiff owned the pertinent land, the fact that earned income was generated, and further there is no objective evidence to support the self-defense.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2015Nu3362 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

***

*The Director of the Tax Office

August 26, 2015

September 16, 2015

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 disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax of KRW 00,000,000) for the plaintiff on September 11, 2012 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff is deemed to have been engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants for not less than eight years on the land in this case, or in cultivating or growing more than half of farming work with his own labor, and the reasoning for this Court’s decision is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except in addition to the determination that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize that the Plaintiff had been engaged in cultivating or growing more than half of farming work with his own labor, even if all of the entries in the evidence No. 19, No. 20-1, No. 20-2, and the fact-finding results on the Secretariat of this Court, which were additionally submitted by the court of first instance in the trial

2. Conclusion

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