beta
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 June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired five parcels, including 4,572m2 and 5m2, (hereinafter “instant land”) in the name of Nonparty C and 2, including Nonparty C, in total, KRW 1,870,000,000, after acquiring them as indicated below.
On December 29, 1983, 4,572, 1983, the land category area of the small area of the land was actually located in the Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Dawon-gun, 6,345 on December 29, 1974, and on December 21, 206, 249, the land area of the Fowon-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, 1974.
On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 420,289,174 of the capital gains tax for the year 2014 by applying the reduced or exempted capital gains tax under the aforementioned provision to the effect that the instant land falls under the non-business land under Article 104-3 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “ Income Tax Act”), but it is deemed that it falls under the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-employed farmland for at least eight years prescribed in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.
C. On April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that this case’s land does not constitute non-business land pursuant to the proviso to Article 104-3(1)1(a) of the Income Tax Act and Article 168-8(3)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25522, Jul. 28, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”), and that the special deduction for long-term holding should be applied to the case where the special deduction for long-term holding is applicable, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction (hereinafter “request for correction of this case”).
Accordingly, on May 19, 2015, the Defendant did not satisfy the “requirements for re- village” under Article 168-8(3)7 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which the Plaintiff is obliged to “resident registration and actually reside.”