임지와 임목을 일체로서 양도하였다고 봄이 상당하므로 양도가액 전부가 양도소득세 부과대상임[국승]
Incheon District Court 2012Guhap458 (23 August 2012)
Early High Court 201J 2102 ( October 25, 2011)
Since it is reasonable to deem that the forest land and forest trees were transferred as a whole, the transfer value is subject to the transfer income tax.
In light of the fact that there is no objective data that the expenses were disbursed for forest management, such as afforestation and forestation, and there is no record of forest management confirmed by the competent authority, and the subject matter of sale and purchase under the forest sales contract is only stated in the forest and the forest trees are not stated separately, it is reasonable to deem that the forest and forest trees were transferred as a whole.
2012Nu28560 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
IsaA
the director of the tax office of Western
Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap458 Decided August 23, 2012
February 21, 2013
March 14, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on March 1, 201 against the plaintiff on March 1, 201 shall be revoked.
1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable and acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the income from the transfer of the forest of this case also falls under the appellate court, and even if not, since the forest of this case was transferred separately from the forest of this case by using the forest of this case as the object of independent transaction. However, the plaintiff asserts that transfer income tax cannot be imposed on the forest of this case. However, there is no objective evidence that the plaintiff spent expenses for forest management, such as afforestation and growing for the purpose of sale in the forest of this case, and there is no performance in forest management, such as afforestation and growing confirmed by the competent authority, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff obtained permission from the competent authority for cutting down the forest of this case or paid income tax on the forest of this case after cutting down the forest of this case, and the sales contract of the forest of this case contains only the forest of this case as the object of sale, and the forest of this case is not separately stated on the forest of this case as the object of sale, and the plaintiff's assertion that the transfer of the forest of this case is different from the forest of this case from the forest of this case.
3. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.