beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Since 1979, Plaintiff C had operated “E” in the territory of Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si, and Plaintiff A and B had been operating “F” in the same territory since 2002 as Plaintiff C’s children.
B. On March 18, 2003, Plaintiff B donated a total of 88,744m2 (hereinafter “instant donated land”) from Plaintiff C on the basis of Article 15(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998); Article 58 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6297, Dec. 29, 199); and Article 58 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter “former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act”).
C. On March 10, 2004, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 453,538,310 on the gift tax (including additional tax) on the gift land of this case on the ground that the gift land of this case falls under the grassland stipulated in Article 58 (1) 1 (b) of the former Cho Young-gu Act, and the Plaintiff C constitutes a self-employed farmer as stipulated in Article 58 (1) of the same Act, but the Plaintiff B was subject to the enforcement date of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998) and corrected the amount of KRW 45,35,830 on the gift tax (including additional tax) on the gift land of this case on January 1, 1999.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant imposition of gift tax” is subject to the imposition of KRW 408,184,480 on a reduced balance.
Plaintiff
B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the revocation of the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case by Daejeon District Court 2004Guhap3269, and on March 16, 2005, on the ground that “The Plaintiff C satisfies the requirements of a self-employed farmer and on the facts that the gift land of this case is grassland not more than 148,500 square meters under the Grassland Act, there is no dispute between the parties concerned. The Plaintiff B is a farming child as of January 1, 199.”