logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.01.26 2015구단575
양도소득세부과처분취소
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 2, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 6,670 square meters prior to Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 11, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on an agreement on the acquisition of public land in the name of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on April 11, 2013, and the Plaintiff owned the instant land for at least eight years, and applied for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land.

B. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant imposed and collected KRW 108,586,840,000 on the Plaintiff, on March 3, 2014, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years through a local verification, with the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 2,207,485,780, and acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 82,018,608, and KRW 108,586,840, and special rural development tax for the year 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 31, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 6, Eul 1 and 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff resided in the farmland ledger issued by Kimpo-si for about 25 years in the vicinity of the instant land, and entered the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the instant land in the farmland ledger issued by Kimpo-si. In light of the fact that village residents prepared and delivered a letter of certification to confirm that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land directly, the instant disposition was unlawful even if the Plaintiff was recognized as having cultivated the instant land for at least eight years.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) Determination is based on Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015); the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015).

arrow