1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 25, 1988, the Plaintiff: ○○-dong ○○○, ○○-dong, and 1,914 square meters and Dong ○○-dong 621 square meters.

the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 18, 198 by reason of sale on August 18, 1988 (hereinafter the above land)

“Hearing” land of this case.

B. On June 5, 2008, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to KimA in KRW 375,000,000, and the same shall apply.

On the 20th day of the month, the registration of ownership transfer was completed.

C. On July 3, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax to the Defendant, and the volume of the instant land.

The amount of acquisition (converted value), necessary expenses, and special deduction for long-term holding from the Do price (actual transaction value) shall be deducted.

§ 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the " Restriction of Special Taxation Act") shall calculate capital gains and

According to the self-employed farmland reduction and exemption rules, the total amount of tax calculated was reported (No. 2-3).

D. The Superintendent of the Daegu Regional Tax Office around May 2010: the Plaintiff’s land in this case at a comprehensive audit against the Defendant.

I pointed out that it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as having cultivated directly. Accordingly, on May 11, 2010, the Plaintiff was the instant case.

The acquisition value (actual transaction value) from the transfer value of land (actual transaction value);

The amount of capital gains by deducting the necessary expenses and special long-term holding deduction amount, and self-employed farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

He reported the revised amount of capital gains tax (A evidence 3) by excluding the application of reduction and exemption regulations.

The Plaintiff paid in installments on May 17, 2010, and September 15, 2010.

E. On January 22, 2014, the head of the Dong/Dong branch office in Daegu District Prosecutors' Office was exempted from capital gains tax evasion by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

The defendant notified the results of the investigation into the case (No. 2). Accordingly, the defendant notified the case (1)

of this case after deducting the acquisition value (converted value), necessary expenses from the transfer value (actual transaction value), and the land of this case

Capital gains tax by deeming that land falls under land for non-business use and excluding special deduction for long-term possession;

After calculating the amount, ② the application of the self-farmland reduction provision under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act also excludes the amount of tax calculated.

(3) the addition of the additional tax for the aggregate of the tax for the failure to report and the additional tax for the failure to report: 4.201

4. On March 6, 2008, the transfer income tax (including additional tax) for the plaintiff was corrected and notified for 2008 after deducting the already paid tax amount, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case" and "the relevant tax payment notice"

Notice of Tax Payment (hereinafter referred to as "Notice").

F. On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and requested for adjudication on April 18, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal decided on April 2014

12.5. The dismissal ruling was made.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2

Each entry, the whole purport of the pleading, including

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Claim for reduction of self-farmland

The Regulations on the Reduction and Exemption of Self-Cultivating Farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be applied to the same household as they have cultivated directly.

It should be interpreted that the land of this case shall also be applied to the case where the plaintiff has cultivated his family.

○○, which is the location of his parent, shall have resident registration and reside directly or in cooperation with his parent;

Since the land of this case was cultivated for business, at least on August 25, 1988, the date of acquisition of ownership.

DB’s death by August 17, 1997, about 9 years, should be viewed as the Plaintiff’s self-defense period.

2) The assertion that land for non-business use is not land

The instant land is: ① the land inherited by the Plaintiff before December 31, 2006, and up to December 31, 2009.

(2) Farmland that falls under the transferred land or is cultivated by a lineal ascendant for not less than eight years, which is the relevant lineal ascendant.

The land is inherited and donated by the public. Accordingly, the land in this case is subject to Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Article 14-14 (3) shall not apply to land for non-business use.

3) Claim of procedural defect

The disposition of this case contains the following procedural defects. <1> The defendant has a disposal agency against the plaintiff.

Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act was violated because the preceding notification was not made.

No basis for calculation of each subject amount of the additional tax on filing a lawsuit and additional tax on filing a lawsuit is written.

In addition, even in the column of the tax rate for additional payment, only the ‘unpaid' date of payment x 0.03%' is just specific.

There is no indication of the unpaid date.

4) Claim of violation of the principle of trust protection

The Plaintiff shall provide tax counseling to a certified tax accountant who satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption of the land of this case for eight years.

Preliminary return was made on trust and the land of this case in accordance with the direction of the MediationA, and the public official in charge

Under the premise that it does not constitute land for non-business use, a revised return was filed. The plaintiff has such public opinion.

In the instant case, the transfer income tax was paid on a different premise, trusting the expression and paying in installments.

The disposition violates the principle of trust protection.

5) Claim related to additional tax

The plaintiff filed a revised return of capital gains tax according to the direction of the public official in charge.

No standard amount under-reported or unfaithd shall be deemed to have been paid, and even if the penalty tax was imposed

Even if there was a case, the Plaintiff did not perform its duty to report and pay capital gains tax to the Plaintiff.

It should be viewed that there is a justifiable reason for it.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall apply to a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in farmland.

Among land directly cultivated by means prescribed by Presidential Decree for not less than eight years, which is prescribed by Presidential Decree.

10/100 of the capital gains tax on any income accruing from the transfer of land;

section 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the amount of tax shall be reduced or exempted; and

the term "self-Cultivating" means that a resident cultivates crops on his/her own farmland or produces perennial plants on his/her own land;

A farmer who engages in the cultivation of water at all times or with his own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming work;

or growing means any act of growing or growing.

Here, the meaning of ‘one-2 or more self-help' is interpreted as a grammatic and direct cultivation of farmland.

Whether or not to determine whether it is necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010).

section) In part for reasons such as having other occupation, not full-time engaged in agriculture;

Persons engaged in the work shall have the input ratio of ‘self' excluding family members, etc. during the total farming work 1/2

Only when there are more than one person’s direct cultivation (Supreme Court Decision 27 December 27, 2012).

See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19700 Decided January 1, 201

The burden of proof for the direct cultivation of land shall be the person liable to pay the capital gains tax.

See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074 Decided November 22, 2002, etc.

Gap evidence 8, 9, 11, 14 (including each number), Eul evidence 7 and 8, witness KimB

According to each of the testimonys of the juryA, the plaintiff was born on June 20, 1980 and thereafter on February 2003.

For a period of 23 years, the Plaintiff has resided in ○○ City, which is the location of the instant land, and the Plaintiff on the farmland ledger.

his father shall own farmland of 3,278m2 and shall state that he owns farmland of 3,278m2.

In fact, the rightB died on August 17, 1997, and the Plaintiff was located on March 2, 199, ○○○○○ located on March 2, 199.

The fact that he was enlisted on December 27, 199 and was discharged on February 26, 2002, and that he was discharged on February 26, 2002, and that he was a village resident Kim.

'CC, NoA, AA, A, and KimCC' from around August 1988 to August 1997.

Recognizing the fact that the plaintiff prepared a written confirmation that he had a farming house in the land, and the plaintiff

On August 25, 1988, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land was completed in his future is earlier.

As seen above.

However, the following circumstances, which may be known under the above facts of recognition and the relevant laws and regulations, i.e.:

The plaintiff is 8 to 17 years of age from the year 1988 to the year 1997, for the period of his own cultivation.

It is a minor who was a student, and 2. 'self-Cultivating' in the reduction of self-arable farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Interpretation where the input ratio of his/her "self", excluding family members, etc., during physical farming operations, is at least 1/2;

The fact that the plaintiff has to cultivate the family members who are in the same household or living together with the plaintiff.

Supreme Court decisions interpreted as "including cases" as "direct cultivation" in the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

The application in this case is about the previous provisions before the establishment of the provisions embodying the meaning of this case

The interpretation standard of Article 66 (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is disputed.

(3) The confirmation of village residents is inappropriate, and <3> the confirmation of village residents was made by the plaintiff and the rightB together with the farmer.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff cultivated 1/2 or more labor force by inserting them.

In light of the above, the plaintiff is not engaged on a regular basis in the cultivation of the land of this case.

Persons engaged in the farming work on the land of this case, who have worked not less than a half of the farming work on the land of this case.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case was directly cultivated for not less than 8 years.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Judgment on the second argument

According to Articles 104 (1) 8 and 104-3 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act, owners

Farmland which is not located in the location of farmland or which is not cultivated by himself/herself shall be classified into “non-business land”;

capital gains tax is subject to heavy taxation, while Article 104-3(2) of the Income Tax Act provides 1.

land for non-business use, if any extenuating circumstance prescribed by Presidential Decree exists in applying paragraph

section 168-14(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that it shall not be deemed as such.

‘A farmland, forest land and stock farm land inherited before December 31, 2006, which are no longer than December 31, 2009

land (No. 1) transferred, and directly residing in the location of land for at least eight years by the lineal ascendant, etc.;

Land (No. 1-2) inherited or donated from the relevant lineal ascendant, etc. with small farmland, etc.

It provides that land for business shall not be considered land for business.

The Plaintiff’s land falls under Article 168-14(3)1 and 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act.

The plaintiff asserts that land for non-business use can not be seen as land for non-business use. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff can be seen as land for non-business use.

25. The fact that the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land was completed on August 18, 198 on the ground of "Sale dated August 18, 198."

was succeeded to the land of this case (the plaintiff shall not be deemed to have acquired ownership around 1998)

It was argued that it was entrusted and that it was inherited only after the death of the rightB around 1997;

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that a title trust agreement existed.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the head satisfies the requirements of subparagraph 1-2 above.

The plaintiff's assertion that this case's land does not constitute non-business land is without merit.

3) Judgment on the third argument

A) Determination on the assertion on the violation of the prior notice of disposition

According to Article 3(2)9 of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, taxes shall be imposed.

The Administrative Procedures Act shall not apply to matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes under related Acts and subordinate statutes.

Therefore, the Framework Act on National Taxes applies to the taxation imposition procedure.

Article 81-15 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be notified in writing of the results of tax investigation.

A person shall be lawfully notified to the head of the tax office, etc. within 30 days of receipt of the notification.

Paragraph (2) shall provide that a request for pre-assessment review may be made with respect to sex, and Paragraph (2) shall be

subsection (1) and (3) does not apply to any case.

From the date notice and notice of the result of the investigation to the expiration date of the exclusion period for national tax imposition.

It refers to a case where the period is not more than 3 months, and the pre-announcement of taxation can request pre-assessment review.

national taxes, as provided in the above provision, are established for the purpose of granting the right to such national taxes.

A taxpayer cannot make a request for pre-assessment review due to the imminent expiration of the exclusion period for the imposition.

In case of the tax authority's failure to give notice of taxation (Seoul High Court).

See Supreme Court Decision 2010Nu17283 Decided December 16, 2010

The exclusion period for imposition of transfer income tax on the transfer income belonging to the plaintiff in 2008 shall be the exclusion period.

Article 26-2 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, five years of expiration, and Article 110 of the Income Tax Act

Pursuant to paragraph (1), May 31, 2014. Therefore, on March 7, 2014, the point at which the instant disposition was taken, the period of exclusion from the imposition of national taxes.

It is obvious that it is less than three months until the expiration date. The plaintiff may make a request for pre-assessment review.

Since there is no prior notice of taxation, the defendant can omit this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

80,000.

B) Determination as to the assertion of defects in tax payment notices

With respect to the imposition of penalty tax, a notice of tax payment may be served anywhere in the Framework Act on National Taxes

There is no provision regarding the method, etc. of the principal tax; however, additional tax is a tax item of the principal tax;

Although it is imposed (the main sentence of Article 47 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), the essence thereof is the exercise of the right to impose taxes and tax bonds.

In order to facilitate the realization of rights, the payment in violation of the obligations prescribed by tax-related Acts without justifiable grounds;

In that it is a kind of administrative sanction imposed on a tax obligor, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2005 September 30, 2005)

The principle of due process of tax payment should be achieved more strongly.

If the basis for calculation of additional tax is not specified, the taxpayer shall be liable to pay the additional tax.

It is not easy to identify whether it is imposed on any ground.Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act concerning a notice of tax payment is not easy.

The purpose of the provisions of paragraph (1) or Article 83 of the Income Tax Act, etc. is to issue additional tax payment notice.

The penalty tax should be fulfilled as it is. The form and content of the penalty tax should be the same as the principal tax.

tax payment shall be notified by clarifying the basis for calculation, etc. of the tax amount, and the tax payment to which a tax payment notice is issued.

There is no additional tax without confirming the provisions of the law separately or seeing the tax authority.

It is necessary to ensure that the tax amount was imposed and the basis for the calculation thereof is known (Supreme Court).

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347 Decided October 18, 2012

According to Gap evidence No. 6, the notice of this case was based on "the basis for calculation of additional tax" column.

The reaffirmed facts are recognized as follows:

The following circumstances, i.e., national tax collection, known in accordance with the above facts of recognition and the relevant statutes:

Article 9 (1) of the Act provides for a notice of tax payment concerning the collection of national taxes for the taxable period, tax item, or tax

Amount, basis for calculation, time limit and place of payment, and Article 83 of the Income Tax Act and the time of the Income Tax Act

Article 149 of the Decree provides for "tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters at the time of imposing income tax" in writing.

In addition, the penalty tax for capital gains tax should be notified.

(2) Articles 47-3(1) and 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

According to Paragraph 1, etc., the method of calculating the general under-reported penalty tax x 10%.

J. The calculation method of the amount of additional tax for arrears is 】 tax amount to be paid in small tax 】 unpaid x 0.03%, so it is '.'

A notice of tax payment on the under-reported tax amount shall not be deemed to be a separate inquiry by the tax authority.

(3) However, there must be an indication to the extent that the basis for the calculation of the underpaid tax amount is recognizable.

The notice of tax payment of this case can only include only the amount subject to each penalty tax, and the calculation of the subject amount.

The method is not entirely indicated, and the calculation basis of the principal tax is also indicated (tax base 323,236,172).

Won, tax rate of 60%, calculated tax amount of 190,175,7421), additional tax of 77,21,959, various deductible tax amounts of 77,21,959,

53,604,358 won, the amount of tax notified within the payment period 213,783,340 won, at all, can be known.

(4) In this case, the plaintiff's initial report, revised report, two or more installments, and the defendant

Due to the correction, notification, etc. (the disposition of this case), etc., the plaintiff under-reported tax amount and under-paid tax amount;

The defendant himself could not know about the amount of the subject matter at the hearing of this case, even if he did not calculate the amount of the subject matter.

(5) Whether the basis for calculating the amount subject to additional tax is revealed in a payment notice;

As a result, there is no difference between the amount of additional tax and the amount of additional tax.

On the other hand, the tax notice of this case did not state the basis for calculation of penalty tax properly.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit, it is reasonable to deem that there exists additional tax.

Without need to further examine the Plaintiff’s assertion of money, during the disposition of this case

Additional tax for underreporting KRW 5,580,335 and additional tax for insincere payment 71,631,624

shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

4) Judgment on the fourth argument

In administrative legal relations, the principle of the protection of trust is applied to the acts of administrative agencies.

in order to obtain trust from individuals, first, an administrative agency’s public statement of opinion is subject to trust.

of the administrative agency's second statement of opinion that the administrative agency's statement of opinion is justified, and that person's statement of opinion

that person should have trusted that person's name and trusted that person should have

Fourth, the administrative agency made a disposition against the above statement of opinion so that the name of the opinion is trusted.

The interests of the person should be infringed, and finally, the administration in accordance with the above statement of opinion.

(1) If such action is likely to seriously undermine the public interest or the legitimate interest of a third party;

(2) The court below’s determination should not be the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9644, Apr. 28, 2006).

A’s spirit of receiving the Plaintiff by the tax authorities solely on the basis of each statement of evidence Nos. 18 through 20

The public opinion that the high tax amount is the legitimate amount of capital gains tax on the transfer of the land of this case

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that a person had made an order, and even if so, an expression of such public opinion;

Even if there was a tax official in charge with regard to the Plaintiff’s revised return of this case

In light of the fact that the defendant was punished as a crime of occupational breach of trust (Tgu District Court 2014

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any cause attributable to the Plaintiff’s trust. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.