logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.01.25 2017구단100255
양도소득세경정거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Circumstances and facts of the disposition;

A. On December 27, 200, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 15,000 square meters and 15,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to ASEAN-si, Asan-si, and transferred the instant land to C Regional Housing Association on March 13, 2015.

B. The instant land is farmland, the consultation on farmland diversion of which was completed on January 28, 1994, with a Class II residential area on January 28, 1994.

After acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff directly managed an orchard or caused a third party to cultivate vegetables, etc., but did not engage in development activities for using the instant land as a residential area.

C. On May 31, 2015, the Plaintiff reported capital gains tax of KRW 2,934,739,180 on the instant land. However, on September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land was excluded from the land for non-business use after completing the farmland diversion consultation, and filed a request for correction by deducting KRW 2,332,965,14 from the special long-term holding deduction amounting to KRW 886,526,760 for the capital gains tax of KRW 2015.

On November 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not engage in development activities or building permission, etc. suitable for the residential area, which is the exclusive purpose of the instant land, and thus, did not use the instant land for the purpose of farmland diversion.”

E. The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6 through 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 104-3(1)1(a) proviso of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016) (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) (hereinafter “instant legal provision”).

Farmland Act or any other Act.

arrow