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 February 10, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired and owned B 3,544 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and sold KRW 723,00,000 to C, D, and E on March 19, 2015, and then applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on one’s own farmland for eight years under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 14390, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same) to the Defendant.
B. After investigating the transfer income tax of the Plaintiff, the Defendant confirmed that the annual gross salary of each taxable period of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 for the period of 12 years and 12 years and 2010 for which the Plaintiff owned the instant land was at least KRW 37 million, and confirmed that the annual gross salary of each taxable period of 5 years was at least KRW 37,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 under Article 66(14) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27848, Feb. 7, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the instant land possession period, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from applying for reduction or exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the self cultivation requirements for at least eight years.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On March 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, on June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was dismissed.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the key issues of the instant case was newly established on February 21, 2014 and came into force on July 1, 2014. Before the said key issues clause was newly established, a statement of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-arable farmland.
There was only the requirements for residents and self-reliance, and there was no provision on the income of farmers.
The Plaintiff had already owned the land of this case for not less than 12 years before the establishment and enforcement date of the main provision of this case.