양도소득세부과처분취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 30, 2003, the Plaintiff, his father, owned CY 1,755 square meters, D field 3,015 square meters, E field 1,874 square meters, F prior to 1,560 square meters, G previous 60 square meters, and H prior 3,976 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and transferred the instant land to I on November 21, 2008.
The Plaintiff did not report the tax base of capital gains from the transfer of the instant land to the Defendant, and the head of Yongsan Tax Office conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on the instant land from October 17, 201 to October 31 of the same month, and notified the Defendant of the result. Accordingly, on January 2, 2012, the Defendant deemed the instant land as non-business land and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 653,762,320 for the principal income tax and additional tax for the year 2008 by applying the heavy tax rate (60%).
On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on January 27, 2012, but the said request was dismissed on July 3, 2012.
Meanwhile, on October 15, 2013, the Defendant revoked ex officio the disposition of imposition of penalty tax of KRW 212,001,174 among the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax as of January 2, 2012 as of January 2, 2012, in order to specify the type of penalty tax and the grounds for calculation thereof, and again imposed penalty tax of KRW 212,01,170 on October 15, 2013.
[hereinafter referred to as "the principal tax" means only the principal tax 441,761,148 won of the capital gains tax of January 2, 2012 for the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the main tax excluding the additional tax").
(2) The disposition of this case, together with the disposition of imposition of additional tax as of October 15, 2013, is to be taken. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1, 2, and 4 (including the number of each branch number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was cultivated by the deceased B from around 2000 to the deceased J, the Lee Sung-si. The Plaintiff had K continue to cultivate the land of this case even after inheritance in 2003, and L, the relative of which in 2006, had K continue to cultivate.