양도소득세부과처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 28, 198, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B 3,118 square meters and C forest land 12,223 square meters (hereinafter the above two parcels are referred to as “instant land”).
On January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to D Co., Ltd., and thereafter, on June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired forest E, 736 square meters as substitute farmland.
B. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a return on KRW 14,788,760 with respect to the transfer income tax on farmland under Article 70 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation, by applying the reduction or exemption to farmland in the instant land.
(c)
The Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from April 9, 2018 to April 27, 2018, and deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate without residing in the location of the instant land.
The judgment excluded the application of the farmland reduction and exemption, and, on July 11, 2018, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 144,790,000 of the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.
The Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 28, 2020, following the Plaintiff’s objection to the instant disposition (a ground: withdrawal of the claim for reduction or exemption of farmland in the existing farmland, and at least eight years, the Plaintiff’s request for a trial was dismissed on January 28, 2020.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had resided in the location of the instant land for not less than eight years, and cultivated trees, etc. on the instant land directly.
In particular, the relevant regulations on the reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland do not require that the residing and cultivation fact be continuously made for 8 years.
Therefore, the Plaintiff did not temporarily reside in the same season, and the mere fact that there was other income does not satisfy the requirements for reduction and exemption of farmland on his own.
The instant disposition is unlawful.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
(c)
Judgment
(i)..