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 April 30, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired and owned B 1,69 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and transferred the instant land on March 2, 201, and on March 2, 201, at the time of the transfer on March 2, 201, the land category was changed and divided after the Plaintiff’s acquisition, and at the time of the transfer on March 2, 201, the land of this case was 624 square meters, 624 square meters, 62 square meters, 530 square meters, 483 square meters, and 483 square meters, respectively.
On February 8, 2011, the Republic of Korea acquired CY 1,205 square meters and 5/15 shares in D 828 square meters (hereinafter “the instant substitute land”).
At present, the name of the administrative district is changed to I/J of Pakistan.
Since then, the Plaintiff used part of the instant land as a site for a livestock shed and used it as a site for a livestock shed. However, the Plaintiff used the land equivalent to 660 square meters, which is part of which, after transferring the instant land, as farmland cultivated agricultural crops, such as vegetables. After acquiring the instant substitute land and cultivating it, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Special Taxation Act”) regarding capital gains on the instant land, pursuant to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the farmland substitute land.
C. Accordingly, on October 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a revised notice of the capital gains tax reduction and exemption for capital gains tax (including additional tax; hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the year 2011, on the grounds that it is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s self-reliance on the land at issue is the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s self-reliance on the land at issue is also unclear.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 12, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.