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 September 14, 1987, the net B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to C-Y 4,638 square meters (hereinafter “C-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-
B. On March 15, 2002, the net B donated the instant land to the Plaintiff, who was ASEAN, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 18, 2002 on the instant land due to donation.
The deceased B died around April 2005.
C. On April 14, 2012, the Plaintiff sold C land in KRW 272,00,000, and KRW 178,000,00 to E respectively, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to E and F on May 16, 2012.
On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a return on capital gains tax with the purport that no amount of capital gains tax is to be paid after full reduction or exemption, as the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land to the Defendant for at least eight years.
E. However, on August 1, 2013, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be deemed that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years, and, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s attached, directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years, and donated the instant land to the Plaintiff, thereby excluding the special deduction for long-term holding, thereby making a correction and notification of capital gains tax of KRW 148,103,9
F. As to this, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 7, 2013.
As a result, on December 24, 2013, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service partially accepted the Plaintiff’s request for examination on the ground that he appears to have donated the instant land to the Plaintiff after directly cultivating the instant land for at least eight years.
However, even as a result of the above examination, the part that the plaintiff asserted that he directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years is not accepted.
G. The Defendant’s examination results on January 2, 2014.