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 December 18, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of 11,564 square meters in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 15, 200 on the ground of donation on December 15, 2003, but transferred KRW 420,00,000 to D on December 4, 2015, and transferred the said land to the Defendant on February 29, 2016 by applying the special deduction under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the special deduction under Article 95 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 13588, Dec. 15, 2015).
B. As a result of the investigation of capital gains tax on the instant land, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the said land, and subsequently excluded the application of capital gains tax reduction and exemption and special deduction for long-term holding of self-arable farmland, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 142,372,730 (including additional tax 14,958,674) for the capital gains tax reverted to year 2015 on December 1, 2016.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff owned the above land as close as 12 years and directly cultivated it for 8 years or longer, and thus, the Plaintiff’s exemption from capital gains tax and special deduction for long-term possession should be applied.
Even if it is not so, the above land has been used as farmland since it was used as farmland, and the plaintiff also believed to be subject to reduction and exemption of capital gains tax and special deduction for long-term holding, and as long as the tax accountant had expressed his opinion as above, it is illegal to impose penalty tax at least on the ground that there is a justifiable reason to neglect the performance
Therefore, this is applicable.