logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.02.10 2016구단59211
양도소득세부과처분취소
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. On January 6, 1964, the Plaintiff acquired B 4526 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and acquired one parcel outside C on February 28, 1995, but transferred all the said land on March 31, 2014.

B. On May 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains accrued in the year 2014 with respect to the said transfer to the Defendant, and applied Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) with respect to the land at issue of the instant case, and applied the said tax reduction or exemption.

C. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff to additionally pay KRW 182,046,820 (including additional tax paid in bad faith) and the special rural development tax for rural development, 6,939,000 for capital gains tax for the year 2014, by deeming that the Plaintiff did not own for at least eight (8) years from the date of acquisition to the date of transfer of the pertinent land.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on May 17, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

6. The key land in this case was purchased with parents in order to establish a farmer's residence with two snows, and it was impossible for them to lead a normal social life after having participated in a war on 25.

The Plaintiff, due to the disability, was extremely impossible to cultivate the instant land independently with the Plaintiff’s labor force, but from around 1954, the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity of the instant land and managed the instant land as the only means of living. As such, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been engaged in agriculture on a regular basis and directly cultivated the instant land.

(g) guides;

arrow