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. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired 35,802 square meters of farmland C in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”) from B, and transferred the said land to one other on September 15, 2015, other than D and one person on September 15, 2015.
B. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 2,95,500 as transfer income tax for the year 2015, the transfer value of KRW 140 million to the Defendant, KRW 24 million as acquisition value, KRW 107,509,00 as necessary expenses (capital expenditure amount of KRW 106,157,00 as acquisition tax and KRW 1,352,00 as certified judicial scriveners).
C. The Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff; (b) deemed that KRW 106,157,000, which the Plaintiff appropriated as necessary expenses, does not constitute expenditure related to the instant land; and (c) denied the deduction from the transfer value; and (d) subsequently notified the Plaintiff of KRW 60,965,960, and local income tax of KRW 6,096,590, which reverts to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 12, 2016, but was dismissed on November 29, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (if there are provisional lot numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 36 million to B as the tree price at the time of acquiring the instant land, and the said money should be included in the acquisition value of the instant land.
In addition, from December 17, 2014 to August 15, 2015, the Plaintiff spent 66,267,000 won as labor cost to manage the trees, etc. of the instant land from December 17, 2014 to August 15, 2015. Since the Plaintiff spent 4 million won as brokerage fee for the instant land, the said money constitutes necessary expenses.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not deduct the above costs from the transfer value of the land of this case is unlawful.
B. Relevant taxation of capital gains tax.