Cheongju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-2382 (2018.08)

strictly interpreting the requirements for reduction and exemption, requirements for deduction, which can be seen as clearly preferential provisions, is consistent with the principles of equity in taxation.

In light of the fact that it conforms to the principle of tax equity to strictly interpret the requirements for reduction or exemption and the requirements for special deduction for long-term holding, the Plaintiff does not constitute the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax and the requirements for special deduction for

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju)-2018-Nu723

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-2382

8.07.18

2018.08.29

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 142,372,730 (including additional tax of KRW 14,958,674) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

(1) The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 66 (11) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "if an inheritor continues to cultivate the inherited farmland for at least one year, the period acquired by the predecessor and cultivated by the heir shall be deemed the period of cultivation by the heir." However, the Plaintiff received a donation from ○○○, a father who cultivated the land in this case for a period of several hundreds, which is in fact the same as inheritance, and thus, the transfer income tax shall be reduced

B. Determination

On the other hand, the above provision of the Enforcement Decree is a preferential provision, and it accords with the principle of tax equity to strictly interpret it. Whether to recognize the benefits of tax reduction or exemption should belong to the legislative discretion, and contrary to the fact that inheritance takes place in a non-voluntary manner, there is a difference between the gift and the donor’s voluntary intent, etc. Therefore, it is not allowed to extend the aggregate provision of the period of self-reliance between the heir and the decedent under the above Enforcement Decree and the donee to extend it to the donor and the donee under the principle of no taxation without law. Accordingly, the above assertion by

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.