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 February 19, 192, the Plaintiff transferred a total of 3,729 square meters of five parcels, other than Gyeonggi-gun B, which was acquired on February 19, 1992, to C, who is the Plaintiff’s square on November 28, 201.
On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff reported that the transfer income tax was reduced or exempted on the ground that the instant land constitutes self-Cultivating farmland requirements for at least eight years, without reporting the transfer income tax at the time, and the reporting deadline passed.
B. As to this, the Defendant denied the reduction and exemption of self-arable land as to the instant land on the ground that the instant land was not farmland at the time of transfer, among the said six parcels of land, the instant disposition was rendered against the Plaintiff on June 15, 2015, to determine and notify the transfer income tax of KRW 35,487,427 (including additional tax) reverted to the Plaintiff in the year 2011.
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on July 7, 2016.
[Grounds for recognition] Entry of No. 8 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in the instant disposition that denied the reduction and exemption of the Plaintiff’s farmland on the ground that the instant land was not farmland at the time of its transfer, even though the Plaintiff constructed a mushroom growing building on November 18, 2009 and was growing mushroom from April 2010.
B. Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced on the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which has been cultivated directly by the resident residing in the location of the farmland for not less than eight years by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and as to the direct cultivation of farmland, the taxpayer has the burden of proof.
In other words, it was newly constructed on the land of this case around 2009, which is recognized by the respective descriptions of the evidence of Nos. 3 through 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings.