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 May 7, 198, the Plaintiff acquired 1,021 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”). However, on December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to Suwon-si.
B. On February 28, 2013, when the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant on February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land constitutes “self-farmland for at least eight years” as prescribed by the main sentence of Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) and applied for the full amount of the transfer income tax, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption and rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption on October 2, 2013, by deeming that the period for directly cultivating the instant land by the Plaintiff falls under eight years.
(c) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 10, 2013, but was dismissed on June 30, 2014. [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, and 1-2, 1-2, and 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) since the acquisition of the instant land in 1988, the Plaintiff was directly engaged in rice farming on the instant land except for the period from 2004 to 2008, and thus, the instant land constitutes one of its own farmland for at least eight years as prescribed by the reduction or exemption clause of capital gains tax under the instant reduction or exemption clause. Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case 1,66 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 198, and transferred the said land in 201. The Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the said land in relation to the capital gains tax of the said land.
However, the defendant's land of this case at the same time as the acquisition time and the transfer time are the same or similar.