Disposition Rejecting Transfer Income Tax Correction

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was self-recovered for not less than 8 years, in light of the statements of related persons who actually cultivated the land, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Cheongju District Court 2018-Nu-115 ( January 16, 2019)

QQQ

a) the Director of the Tax Office

December 19, 2018

January 16, 2019

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, civil law, since the reasoning of this court's judgment is identical to that of the first instance court.

Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Litigation Act, it shall be quoted as it is (the plaintiff shall be from December 10, 1968 to 1978).

6.2. In addition, this Court emphasizes that the land of this case was cultivated directly until December 2, 2000

Gap evidence 17 to 21 is submitted, but the first instance court's judgment is 2.c. (1)(7 pages 4 to 7)

The plaintiff 8 et al. and Eul 8 and 9 that served as the basis for such circumstances as described in paragraph 4.

aaa, bbb, which is the confirmor of the above evidence submitted in this court, shall be subject to the Defendant’s question.

The plaintiff's response cannot be rejected and only the above evidence cannot be considered. On the other hand, the plaintiff's response cannot be considered.

The time from December 10, 1968 to June 2, 1978, asserting that the land of this case was directly cultivated.

a person who owns farmland of a size of 10,000 square meters in total, including the instant land;

In light of the above, evidence No. 17 duly adopted and examined by the first instance court

Further to the evidence No. 21, the plaintiff directly cultivates the land of this case for not less than eight years at the above time.

It is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that it was, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the first instance court physician

The actual recognition and judgment are just and do not contain the same errors as the plaintiff alleged as the grounds for appeal.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal is justified as it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

this decision is rendered.