logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.01.11 2017누10565
양도소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax of KRW 93,372,420 to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 6, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case 886 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to C.

B. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) with the Defendant on the ground that “The instant land constitutes land directly cultivated by the Plaintiff for at least eight years.”

C. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years through an on-site investigation of capital gains tax, and imposed KRW 93,372,420 on the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant, but dismissed on March 7, 2016, and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on May 18, 2016, but was dismissed on September 1, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 10, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land and cultivated the sales room, etc. for not less than eight years, and thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination 1) The burden of proof of the fact that the transferred farmland was cultivated directly for at least eight years is against a taxpayer who asserts the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 194). Meanwhile, Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1) and (1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015) in order to obtain a reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 66(1) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located or the

arrow