beta
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016. 12. 23. 선고 2016누22575 판결

농지대토의 양도세 감면요건은 자경농가로서 소유하던 농지를 경작상의 필요에 의하여 대토하기 위한 경우로 제함됨.[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Ulsan District Court-2016-Guhap227 (Law No. 25, 2016.08)

Title

The requirements for the transfer tax exemption of substitute land can be limited to the case where the farmland owned by the self-employed farmer is to be exchanged for the purpose of cultivation.

Summary

On the day of acquisition of substitute farmland, the Plaintiff was subject to restrictions on the use of land by setting superficies on the bank on the day of acquisition of substitute farmland, divided more than half of the area for two years after acquisition, and sold it to another person, and the Plaintiff was directly cultivated in light of the fact that substitute farmland was not owned by the Plaintiff, but did not submit evidentiary data related to farming.

Related statutes

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

Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act: Requirements for Reduction and Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land

Cases

2016Nu22575 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

CHAPTER A

Defendant, Appellant

The Director of the Z Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Ulsan District Court Decision 2016Guhap227 Decided August 25, 2016

Conclusion of Pleadings

December 2, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

December 23, 2016

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 defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 87,146,750 against the plaintiff on June 12, 2015 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, and thus, administrative litigation

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.