양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. (i) On November 14, 1988, the Plaintiff acquired B 962 square meters and C 3,461 square meters prior to Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si. On April 3, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired D 170 square meters, E 1,679 square meters, F 129 square meters, G 612 square meters, and H 3,954 square meters.
on July 15, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the aggregate of 10,967 square meters of the said seven parcels (hereinafter “instant land”) to KRW 1.9 billion, and on September 28, 2011, the Plaintiff deducted the special long-term holding deduction amounting to KRW 407,916,759, and applied the provision on reduction of and exemption from the calculated tax amount to KRW 317,357,022, by applying the provision on reduction and exemption for self-Cultivating farmland (= calculated tax amounting to KRW 317,357,022 – KRW 200,000).
On December 2, 2015, the Defendant denied the application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-owned farmland on the ground that the instant land does not fall under farmland at the time of transfer and did not cultivate 1/2 or more of the farming work with the Plaintiff’s labor, and at the same time excluded the special deduction for long-term holding, thereby excluding the special deduction for long-term holding, thereby notifying the Plaintiff of additional tax of KRW 13,829,263 for non-payment of KRW 157,023,334 for non-payment of tax amount of KRW 117,357,00,000 for non-payment of tax amount of KRW 13,829,263 for non-payment of tax amount of KRW 460,127,887.
Applicant filed a petition for trial on June 8, 2016 after filing an objection, but the petition was dismissed on August 3, 2016.
【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1-1 through 7, Gap’s evidence 2, 3, and 4, Eul’s evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. (i) The Plaintiff asserts that the land of this case was lawful, while growing more than 1/2 of the landscaped trees and growing them. According to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Articles 95 and 104-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 168-8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.