beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
Basic facts are: (a) on January 7, 2002, the mother of the Plaintiff: (b) donated part of the E 4,139 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and (c) on January 9, 2012, Plaintiff A; (b) on January 9, 2012, Plaintiff A; (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the E 4,139 square meters; and (d) on the same day, Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the E 1/7 square meters; and (c) on the same day, Plaintiff A, B, and Plaintiff C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the E 1/4, and Plaintiff C, 2/4, respectively.
(2) On November 16, 2012, the Plaintiffs sold each of the instant land at KRW 50,000,000 and completed the registration of ownership transfer after selling each of the instant land at KRW 550,00,00,00 with respect to the instant land at KRW 950,000.
The Plaintiffs filed an application for tax reduction or exemption on the grounds that they directly cultivated each of the instant land for at least eight years, based on Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, upon reporting transfer income tax after selling each of the instant land.
However, on November 13, 2013, the Defendant respectively corrected and notified the Plaintiff A of KRW 80,570,930, capital gains tax for the year 2012, capital gains tax for December 6, 2013, KRW 49,413,840, and capital gains tax for the year 2012 to Plaintiff B on December 3, 2013, and KRW 117,53,500, capital gains tax for the year 2012 to Plaintiff C on December 3, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant disposition.” The Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the Defendant’s instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 28, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim on June 10, 2014.
[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiffs asserted as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case in the entirety of the arguments stated in Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and Gap evidence 3-1 through 3 were cultivated directly for not less than 8 years.
The growing time of the crops cultivated by the plaintiffs was short, and it was sufficient to secure time due to the characteristics of the plaintiffs' occupation.