양도소득세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From November 5, 2004 to April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 18,326,441, B, and transferred KRW 144,450,00 to C on September 1, 2015. From November 5, 2004 to April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff each acquired KRW 16,392,075 in total, and transferred KRW 146,00,000 to F on September 10, 2015.
(A) Each of the instant lands shall be 1,984m2, excluding 42m2, not subject to reduction or exemption, among each of the above lands (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”), and specific details of acquisition and transfer shall be as shown in attached Table 1).
On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for full reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that each of the instant land constitutes one of the self-farmlands for eight years under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) while reporting the capital gains tax on November 30, 2015 to the Defendant.
C. As a result of the investigation of capital gains tax on the plaintiff, the defendant needs to reduce or exempt self-farmland for 8 years.
On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff imposed capital gains tax of KRW 57,165,600 on the Plaintiff for the taxable year to which 2015 belonged.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 30, 2016, but was dismissed on November 28, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (if there are provisional lot numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful since the Plaintiff cultivated G and Oral trees, etc., the Plaintiff’s spouse, in each of the instant lands, and cultivated directly for not less than eight years. As such, the Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.
B. The burden of proving that the transferred land was directly cultivated for not less than eight years shall be imposed on the person liable to pay the transfer income tax in accordance with that provision.