beta
(영문) 대구고등법원 2020.01.10 2019누3651

양도소득세부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the dismissal of the part of the former Restriction of Special Taxation in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes attached to the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

(1) Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 14309, Dec. 20, 2016); (1) A corporation prescribed by Presidential Decree as a corporation, the main business of which is the Korea Rural Community Corporation under the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act or agriculture of which is prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "agricultural corporation" in this Article) for at least eight years (the term "agricultural corporation" in this Article) the resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland.

(i)in cases of transfer to another person by no later than December 31, 2018, a tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax on any income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated directly by methods prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall be reduced or exempted.

Provided, That where the relevant land is incorporated into a residential area, a commercial area, or an industrial area (hereafter referred to as "residential area, etc." in this Article) under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act or has been designated as a land to be reserved for replotting other than farmland before a disposition of replotting is taken pursuant to the Urban Development Act or other Acts, an amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax shall be reduced and exempted only on the income prescribed by Presidential Decree accrued until the date of such designation, which

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.