logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.04.08 2015누23106
양도세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the head of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Seoul-gun, to sell KRW 1,847 square meters, D 1,196 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) for KRW 780,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “transfer”) on August 12, 2013. The Plaintiff applied the aforementioned provision to the Defendant on October 28, 2013, deeming that each of the instant lands constituted “self-sufficient farmland for at least eight years” as stipulated in Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant denied the application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax by deeming that each of the instant lands does not constitute one of its own farmland for at least eight years, and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 186,340,734 on the Plaintiff on July 7, 2014.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(c) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 1, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on October 6, 2014. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s subparagraphs 1 through 4, and Eul’s subparagraphs 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant lands was farmland actually cultivated at the time of the instant transfer or was temporarily closed at the time of the instant transfer. As such, the provision on reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act should be applied, but the instant disposition should be revoked on a different premise.

1) The Plaintiff, except for the festival period until the transfer date of each of the instant land by the time of the instant transfer, cultivated feed crops, such as crypt, Cheonguri, etc., by planting them, and cultivated sulbage, which is a multi-living plant. As such, each of the instant lands constitutes farmland actually cultivated as of the date of the instant transfer. 2) Even if each of the instant lands does not constitute farmland actually cultivated as of the date of the instant transfer, it shall be temporary.

arrow