beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 25, 1972, the Plaintiff acquired 3,901 square meters in YYY-si, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. On November 21, 1996, 2,438.63 square meters in 2,438.63 square meters in the land before the said subdivision was designated as an urban area (general residential area) under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), and on July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff was designated as an urban area (Class II general residential area) under the same Act.
(hereinafter “the instant portion of land,” and the remaining 1,472.37 square meters were designated as a road. The land before the division was divided into B 1,979 square meters, C 495 square meters, C 1,427 square meters, and D 1,427 square meters.
B. On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant transferred land”) to the Fagratu City Development Co., Ltd., for KRW 320 million. Of the instant transferred land, the instant land portion constituted non-business land under the main sentence of Article 104-3(1)1 (b) of the Income Tax Act, and the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 76,421,450 for the transfer income tax for the year 2014 by excluding the special long-term holding deduction.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff asserted that the part of the instant land does not constitute non-business land, and claimed a refund of KRW 20,448,100 in difference by correcting KRW 76,421,454 as KRW 55,973,349 by additionally deducting KRW 53,810,800,000. The Defendant refunded this on May 29, 2015.
However, on August 13, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 20,448,100 for the transfer income tax reverted to the year 20,448,100 on the ground that the instant land portion constituted non-business land.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 22, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful.