beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff owns each land (the land is indicated by the sequence No. 1, hereinafter referred to as “first land”) as indicated below, and the land No. 2 is indicated by the method of “second-class land” as indicated below, but did not report the transfer income tax.
The number of land shall be 1/20 of 430 square meters out of 1/20 on December 3, 2009, in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, 1, 3132 square meters of B forest land 3132 square meters on December 23, 1999 on December 23, 2009, 1/462 square meters of C forest land 462 square meters on December 23, 2009.
On March 10, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the transfer value of KRW 300,377,00 and the conversion acquisition value of KRW 71,687,161 with respect to the Plaintiff as KRW 104,335,115 (hereinafter “the initial disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on the grounds that “the land No. 1 and No. 2 was de facto dry field, and that it was self-ed for eight years,” but was dismissed on July 16, 2014 on the ground that “it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff directly cultivated at least 1/2 of the farming work,” and the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on the ground that it was dismissed on November 12, 2014, on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff cultivated at least 1/2 of the farming work as its own labor force.”
In the process of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant deemed the land Nos. 1 and 2 in the initial disposition as farmland, not farmland. However, if the land Nos. 1 and 2 is deemed farmland differently from the land category, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant imposed the additional imposition of KRW 31,357,758 on the Plaintiff on March 11, 2015 on the ground that the transfer value and acquisition value are the same as the above disposition, but the special deduction for long-term holding is excluded from the said disposition, on the ground that it constitutes non-business land as stipulated in Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act.