양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff purchased from B the amount of KRW 320,00,000 in the purchase price of KRW 320,000 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to each of the instant lands on December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased the amount of KRW 251 square meters (hereinafter “C land”), D 3,729 square meters (hereinafter “D land”), E 4,188 square meters (hereinafter “E”).
B. On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for each of the instant land between F and two others, which constitutes KRW 1,240,000,000, with respect to each of the instant land.
The Plaintiff received the full payment of the purchase price by January 5, 2012 pursuant to the above sales contract, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant land under the name of F and two other on the same day.
C. On March 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax of KRW 200,000 on the ground that each of the instant lands constitutes “self-Cultivating farmland for at least eight years” as prescribed by the main sentence of Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) and filed a return and payment of capital gains tax of KRW 39,67,696.
On September 6, 2013, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from applying for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate each of the instant land for at least eight years,” and deducted the Plaintiff from the total amount of KRW 60,388,747, including the amount of tax scheduled and paid by the Plaintiff, from the disposition imposing capital gains tax and additional tax for the year 2012, less than the total amount of KRW 291,468,747.”
A. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is to sell each of the above lands on January 5, 2012 since the transfer of each of the instant land on September 17, 202.