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. On November 11, 1982, the Plaintiff acquired B forest land 49,505 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and transferred the said land to 3.6 billion won on May 30, 2016, and on July 17, 2016, the Plaintiff reported and paid capital gains tax of KRW 1,635,754,740 on the premise that the instant land fell under the land under Article 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter “ Income Tax Act”) and is not subject to special deduction for long-term possession under Article 95(1) of the Income Tax Act.
B. On October 27, 2017, the Plaintiff used the instant land as a stock farm site provided for in Article 104-3 (1) 3 (a) of the Income Tax Act, etc., unlike the land category entered in the public record, unlike the land category in the public record, and filed a request with the administrative agency to refund capital gains tax of KRW 734,840,100 on the premise that it is subject to special deduction for long-term holding, but the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the said request against the Plaintiff on December 26, 2017.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, on November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was dismissed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land does not constitute non-business land under the Income Tax Act, and thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.
1. The Plaintiff owned land of this case before November 11, 1982. The Plaintiff operated a stock farm on July 31, 1972 with the permission to create grassland granted from Leecheon-si, and on March 29, 1993, the land of this case was revoked from the grassland development district, thereby making it impossible to use it as a stock farm site.
In addition, the plaintiff is registered as a business.