logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.30 2018구단100221
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 23, 1982, the Plaintiff acquired 3,643§³ B (hereinafter “instant land”) for sale and purchase, and transferred the instant land to Sejong Special Self-Governing City for consultation on the acquisition of public land, on August 6, 2014, and paid the transfer income tax on October 31, 2014 by applying the reduction and exemption of the transfer income tax for one’s own farmland for at least eight years as to the transfer of the instant land.

B. After investigating the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years, and thus denied the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax on the self-arable farmland (Provided, That the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax on the land, etc. for public services) and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 210,305,420 for the transfer income tax on June 9, 2017 and KRW 9,362,910 for the special rural development tax for the Plaintiff in 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 7, 2017, but was dismissed on November 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is against the disposition of this case made on a different premise since the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for 17 years since he was employed as a teacher (11 years from 1983 to 1992, 195) and was employed as a rice farmer in the land of this case, and was concurrently employed as a farming house. The plaintiff was directly cultivated the land of this case for 17 years since he was employed as a teacher.

B. Determination 1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same applies)

(1) In order to obtain a reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-arable farmland pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015) and Article 66(4) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of

arrow