Changwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-51660 ( November 14, 2017)

This disposition which excluded the application of special deduction for long-term holding from the application of reduction and exemption for 8 years

The disposition that excludes the special deduction for long-term holding because it falls under the land for non-business as incorporated in a residential area and excluded from the application of reduction or exemption for 8 years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(C)The revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

The director of the tax office of Luxembourg

Changwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap51660 Decided November 14, 2017

April 11, 2018

May 2, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 221,228,210 against the plaintiff on September 13, 2016 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the dismissal as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420

2. Parts to be dried;

The "period of August 13, 2004" in the "period of August 13, 2004" in the 4th judgment of the first instance court shall be " August 13, 2014".

○ From 6th instance court Decision 6th to 7th '4. Conclusion', the previous part is as follows.

“2) Therefore, the period during which the Plaintiff owned the instant land was 5,788 days from October 9, 1998 to August 13, 2014, and the Plaintiff leased the instant land to the competentA from September 30, 2009 to March 20, 2014, and did not cultivate the instant land for the said 1,63 days. Accordingly, the period during which the Plaintiff did not cultivate the instant land is 28.2% compared to the period of possession as listed below.

3) Meanwhile, Article 104-3 (2) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 168-14 (3) 1-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provide that "the land inherited or donated by the relevant lineal ascendant shall not be deemed the land for non-business use," while "the land within the urban area (excluding the green belt area and development restriction zone) under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act at the time of transfer" is excluded from the land that is not deemed the land for non-business use. However, the network right B did not own the instant land for not less than eight years, and since the instant land was included in the Class I general residential area among the urban areas at the time of transfer, it does not constitute the land for non-business use."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.