Daegu District Court 2015Guhap22075

Whether the date of determining whether farmland has not been cultivated by the implementation of the land creation project before the designation of the land scheduled for substitution is the commencement date of the land creation project.

Since the date of determining whether farmland has been cultivated by the implementation of the land development project before the designation of the land scheduled for substitution is the transfer date, the land of this case, which is not farmland at the time of transfer, shall not be subject to reduction or exemption for eight years

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

2015Nu697 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

O Head of tax office

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Guhap22075 Decided October 20, 2015

April 15, 2016

May 13, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On November 12, 2014, the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 222,966,960 against the plaintiff on November 13, 2014 (the "No. 13, 2014" stated in the column of the purport of the appeal and the purport of the appeal in the petition of appeal seems to be erroneous).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and the Plaintiff’s argument at the trial is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for adding the judgment as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows.

○ The second instance court's first instance court's decision " November 13, 2014" is " November 12, 2014."

○ The Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Taxation Restriction is the 16th sentence of the first instance court's decision, the 7th sentence, and the 14th sentence.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended on February 5, 2016, the phrase "after the designation of the land scheduled for substitution" among the reduction provisions in the instant case was deleted. However, such amendment may be interpreted as excluding the application of the reduction provisions when the land development project was implemented prior to the designation of the land scheduled for substitution, based on the reflective consideration that the previous provision may bring about unfair consequences contrary to the principle of fair taxation, so the above amendment Enforcement Decree provisions should also apply to the instant case.

B. Determination

On the other hand, as the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended and promulgated on February 5, 2016 by Presidential Decree No. 26959 on February 5, 2016, the phrase "after the designation of the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the object of the reduction or exemption provision of this case was deleted. However, the following circumstances revealed by the result of inquiry by the court of the first instance and the purport of the whole pleadings are as follows: ① The provision on reduction or exemption of this case is reduced or exempted in cases where the land as the land as the land as the object of the substitution is transferred within three years from the date of the designation of the land as the land as the object of the substitution, but the recent urban development project is designated by the Tax Tribunal after the commencement of the land development project as the land as the planned land as the object of the substitution. ② The amended Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act only provides that the transfer income tax cannot be seen as being implemented under Article 1 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.