(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.24 2014구단100780

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.24 2014구단100780

양도소득세부과처분취소

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 April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred B 2,659 square meters of rice field (hereinafter “one parcel of land”) and C 1,129 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “two parcels of land”) to KRW 500,000,000,000.

B. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 1,212,940 to the head of Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office the transfer value of land No. 477,50,000, and the transfer value of land No. 22,50,000, and the transfer value of land No. 1 to the head of Seo-gu District Tax Office 22,50,000, and the transfer value of land No. 1 to the head of Seo-gu District Tax Office 8 years, respectively. On February 7, 2014, on the following grounds: “The transfer value of land No. 437,729,591, and the transfer value of land No. 4270,409, and the transfer value of land No. 2 to the head of Seo-gu District Tax Office 42,270,000, and the transfer value of land No. 1 to the head of Seo-gu District Tax Office 2013 (hereinafter “instant”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2, 3, and 12 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons, contrary to the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of no taxation without law.

1) The first assertion was made by the Plaintiff on October 26, 1990 and the date of transfer on April 19, 2013. At least, from October 26, 1990 to October 26, 1990, Article 66(12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329, Feb. 9, 2006) on “direct farming” (hereinafter “previous provision”).

(ii) The plaintiff did not know that the previous provisions have been newly established, and as the plaintiff filed a transfer income tax report through a specialized tax agent, did not have any intention to file a report of illegal return, illegal reduction or exemption. Therefore, the plaintiff did not have any intention to file a report of illegal reduction or exemption.

The defendant is newly established by the previous provisions.

참조조문

-조세특례제한법 시행령 제66조 제12항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015. 04. 24. 선고 2014구단100780 판결

-창원지방법원 2016.07.05 2015구합22590

-부산지방법원 2019.10.31 2018구합25111

-대전지방법원 2017.07.18 2015구단101100

-대전지방법원 2018.06.28 2017구단1242