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. On December 15, 198, the Plaintiff acquired 81,025 square meters of forest land B with the wife population (hereinafter “instant forest”) in exchange for the exchange, and filed a report on KRW 117,724,035 of the capital gains tax by applying the special deduction for long-term possession of land for business, by transferring it to a voluntary auction on December 21, 2016.
B. On October 10, 2017, the Defendant did not constitute “land, the use of which is restricted pursuant to the relevant statutes” under Article 168-14(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017; hereinafter the same) but did not reside in the forest of this case. As the Plaintiff did not reside in the forest of this case, the Defendant excluded the special deduction for long-term possession on the ground that the forest of this case constitutes land for non-business use, thereby notifying the Defendant of the correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on December 6, 2017, but was dismissed on May 14, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant forest is designated as a mountainous district for forestry use under the Mountainous Districts Management Act on August 29, 2013, pursuant to Article 12 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15225, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) pursuant to Article 12 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act
(2) Since the forest of this case falls under Article 104-3(2) of this Act and Article 168-14(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the forest of this case should not be deemed land for non-business use. However, although the forest of this case should not be deemed land for non-business use, the defendant made the disposition of this case without applying the special long-term holding deduction. Therefore, the disposition of this case should be revoked since it is unlawful. (2) If the purport of the whole pleadings is added to each of the statements in Gap No. 5 and Eul No. 4, it is necessary to view the forest of this case as land for non-business use.