Busan District Court 2012Guhap769 ( February 27, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201J2892 ( November 29, 2011)

Property tax is not a cemetery subject to non-taxation, but a non-business land is not a land subject to limited use pursuant to statutes.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) Any cemetery which is exempt from property tax under the Local Tax Act is not only a cemetery in the current status, but also a land category is a cemetery in the cadastral record, and in the case of land category in the cadastral record, it shall not be a land subject to property tax, but a land whose use is prohibited or restricted pursuant to any Act and subordinate statutes only because it

2012Nu2863 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of the tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2012Guhap769 Decided July 27, 2012

March 6, 2013

April 3, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim to revoke the disposition imposing additional tax that is changed in exchange at the trial is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal concerning principal tax is dismissed;

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

Each disposition of KRW 000 on the transfer income tax for the year 2008 and the transfer income tax for the year 2008, which was made on February 1, 201, against the plaintiff on February 1, 201, is revoked (the purport of the claim corrected by the plaintiff in the trial shall be determined by comparing the purport of the claim as to the additional tax).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000) for the year 2008 on February 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 26, 2001, the Plaintiff’s father-B donated the Plaintiff’s 291 shares of 499 m20 m20 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s m200 m249 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”). The instant land had one m200 m2 (hereinafter “the instant grave”). The Plaintiff’s m200 m200 m209 m3 (hereinafter “the instant grave”).

B. On April 19, 2008, the Plaintiff opened the instant grave and laid the charnel in order after cremation. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff sold the Plaintiff’s share in the instant land to FF Co., Ltd. for KRW 000, and Ulsan District Court’s registration to F Co., Ltd. and the transfer registration of ownership was completed on June 30, 2008 as the receipt of No. 66064 on June 30, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff reported 000 won of the transfer income tax for the year 2008 by applying 36% of the general tax rate with respect to the transfer of the instant land shares to the Defendant.

D. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000) for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2008 on the ground that “the instant land falls under the non-business land and the tax rate of KRW 60% is applied” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

E. On April 27, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the director of the Busan Regional Tax Office, but the director of the Busan Regional Tax Office dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on May 20, 201, and the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on August 16, 2011, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on November 29, 201.

F. After that, on December 1, 2012, when the lawsuit was pending in the trial, the Defendant revoked the imposition of additional tax of KRW 000 on the transfer tax for the year 2008 during the initial disposition, and 000 won of additional tax on the transfer tax for the year 2008 after indicating the type of and the basis for calculation of additional tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The Parties 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 (including any number in case of each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The judgment of the court on the legitimacy of the instant disposition (cite the judgment of the court of first instance)

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the part "the legitimate part of the disposition in this case" of the first instance court 2. Thus, the court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation of additional tax is dismissed due to the lack of reason (the plaintiff's claim for revocation of additional tax from the original disposition of February 1, 201) and the first instance court's claim for revocation of the main tax of capital gains tax except for the additional tax from the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.