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 November 13, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired 2,336 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si B (hereinafter “instant land”) on January 18, 2010, and 684 square meters in C (hereinafter “instant land”) on January 18, 2010, and newly built three mushroom farming companies on both sides on the ground, as in the images of the attached photo, as in the attached Form. On February 29, 2015, the Plaintiff continued to acquire 1,194,245,850 won (land 872,629,000, 321,616,850 won in land) as compensation, and acquired 48,000 square meters in Sung-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for full reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on farmland substitute land. However, on December 1, 2016, the Defendant denied all of the application and issued a correction notice of KRW 161,069,150 of capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and subsequently, on December 14, 2016, issued a correction notice ex officio by deeming the settlement area of the said 1 land as farmland and reducing the capital gains tax for the year 2015 as KRW 76,70,700,700.
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on December 14, 2016. On June 28, 2017, the Tax Tribunal decided that the settlement area of the five growing companies on the instant land No. 2 as well as the settlement area of the said land shall be deemed to be the farmland subject to reduction and exemption, and the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff on July 12, 2017, KRW 73,654,306 (including additional taxes) of the capital gains tax for the year 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 evidence 1, 2, 3 through 10, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is essential for the use of the mushroom farming company by serving as not only three settlement areas for mushroom farming companies, but also the surrounding concrete packed parts as access roads. Thus, the whole land of this case Nos. 1 and 2 of this case should be recognized as farmland. However, the defendant of this case gives three mushroom farming companies among the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case.