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. In fact, as indicated in the following table, the Plaintiff does not coincide with the contents and status of each land indicated in this table because the number and size of each land are changed through multiple divisions and mergers, but is not accurately consistent with those indicated in this table. However, it is intended to accept a list from the written decision of tax adjudication on convenience.
A total of five parcels of land (this case’s real estate by combining land, 1, 2, and 3) including the land of 1,134 square meters (hereinafter “land”) prior to Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, which is the land prior to subdivision, 1,147 square meters (hereinafter “land”) prior to C, D 1,321 square meters (hereinafter “land”). A total of five parcels of land (this case’s real estate by combining land, 2, and 3) was transferred to a third party.
(1) On December 15, 2012. G, 14.15 (14.09.15. 14. 14.15. 14. 14.23. 14.14. 14.15. 14.15. 14. 14.15. 14.15. 14.15. 14. 14.15. 14. 14. 14.15. 14. 14. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 18. 14. 14. 18. 14. 18. 14. 14. 14. 14. 18. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 30. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 4. 14. 14. 4. 4. 14. 14. 4. 14. 4. 4.
B. Upon filing a report of capital gains tax related thereto, the Plaintiff asserted that the date of transfer of the instant real estate falls under the land directly cultivated for at least eight years under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and filed a report of capital gains tax reduction and exemption on July 28, 2014 (i), September 30, 2014 (ii), and September 4, 2014 (iii).
C. As a result of the investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not do so for at least eight years during the period of possession of the instant real estate on the ground that the Plaintiff worked for at least 38 years as the educational administration of the Seoul National University, and retired in 2013, and deemed that the said real estate constitutes land for non-business purposes, thereby excluding the reduction of farmland and the special deduction for long-term holding. On November 9, 2015, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the capital gains tax on the land as the capital gains tax for which 2014 reverts to the Plaintiff for 1, 239,925