증여세등부과처분취소
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 November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred land of 1,210 square meters located in Kimhae-si B, Kim Jong-si, and applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the substitute farmland pursuant to Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on January 31, 2013.
B. On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff, the parent of C and D, donated the land of 1301.9 square meters in Kimhae-si, 1,650.3 square meters in the above F field, G field 2,965.8 square meters in Kimhae-si, the above H field 9.1 square meters in 989.1 square meters in Kimhae-si, 1,818 square meters in the above J field (hereinafter “each land in this case”), and around January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a reduction or exemption of gift tax pursuant to Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).
C. As a result of an on-site investigation on each of the above applications for reduction and exemption, the Defendant did not directly cultivate each of the instant lands and did not directly cultivate each of the instant lands.
Based on the determination that the Plaintiff did not satisfy any of the cases, each of the Plaintiff issued a correction notice (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) of KRW 100,863,870, and KRW 57,657,190 as of July 10, 2014, respectively, for the transfer income tax of KRW 57,657,190 as of July 2014.
On November 10, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the plaintiff filed a request for the revocation of each of the dispositions of this case with the Tax Tribunal.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff resided in the location of each land of this case and satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption of the above gift tax and capital gains tax on the land of this case, and thus, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful. 2) Even if the Plaintiff did not reside at the location of each land of this case, the Plaintiff’s wife and children did not live.