Seocho 2013west 1276

It is difficult to apply the reduction and exemption of the land of this case for eight years.

In full view of the lack of evidence to prove that the plaintiff's main business and self-competitive business are insufficient, it is difficult to apply reduction or exemption for eight years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Gudan17759 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

KimA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

November 13, 2013

January 22, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the capital gains tax on January 1, 2013 imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

“A. On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired OO-dong 769-2 3,924 square meters, and transferred 425/436 shares among them to BB on December 23, 2011, on the premise that the instant land was self-owned for at least eight years, and paid capital gains tax on the premise that the instant land was self-owned for at least eight years,” and “B. The Defendant recognized the reduction of the acquisition value of the instant land, on the premise that the Plaintiff did not self-reowned for at least eight years, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the revision of the capital gains tax OOO, special rural development tax OOOOO for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4-4, Eul 1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff directly cultivated rice, etc. from the date of acquisition to the date of transfer from the land of this case, and directly cultivated trees from September 2006 to the date of transfer. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s land of this case was cut for at least eight years, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The transferor of the transferred land must actively prove the fact of self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu402, Oct. 13, 1987).

(5) The Plaintiff, as evidence of the fact that the Plaintiff directly cultivated rice, etc. from 203 to 206, appears to have been using 20, 10, 200, 200, 200, 30,000,000, 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.