beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Since 1979, Plaintiff C had operated “E” in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si, and Plaintiff A and B had been operating “F” in the above land since 2002 as Plaintiff C’s children.
B. On March 18, 2003, Plaintiff B received donation from Plaintiff C on a total of 88,744m2 (hereinafter “instant donated land”). On the basis of Article 15(2) of the Addenda (wholly amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6297, Dec. 29, 200); Article 58 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter “former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act”).
C. On March 10, 2004, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 453,538,310 on the gift tax (including additional tax) of the gift land of this case on the ground that the gift land of this case falls under the grassland stipulated in Article 58 (1) 1 (b) of the former Cho Young-gu Act, and the Plaintiff C constitutes a self-employed farmer as stipulated in Article 58 (1) of the same Act, but the Plaintiff B was subject to the enforcement date of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998) and corrected the disposition of imposition of KRW 45,35,83,830 on the gift tax of this case on the ground that “the gift land of this case does not fall under the farming child as stipulated in Article 58 (1) of the former Cho Jong-gu Act.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant imposition of gift tax” is subject to the imposition of KRW 408,184,480 on a reduced balance.
Plaintiff
B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case by Daejeon District Court 2004Guhap3269, and on March 16, 2005, the instant disposition imposing the gift tax of this case is revoked on the grounds that “The Plaintiff C satisfies the requirements of a self-employed farmer and the facts that the gift land of this case is grassland not more than 148,500 square meters under the Grassland Act. The Plaintiff B is a farming child as of January 1, 1999.”