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. On October 19, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 1658 square meters in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”). On November 18, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of an agreement on the land for public use in the Korea Land and Housing Corporation. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the land for public use in Incheon, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, 2509 square meters (hereinafter “large farmland”).
B. On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income from the transfer of the instant land to the Defendant, but did not pay the preliminary return. On November 1, 2012, the Defendant imposed and collected the Plaintiff KRW 65,875,340 (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax for the year 201.
C. As seen earlier, on April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired substitute farmland as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant substitute farmland after transferring the instant land to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff did not directly engage in the acquisition of substitute farmland. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification of the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same). On June 28, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for rectification on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly refrain from substitute farmland.
As a result, on January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on August 18, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, Eul 1 through 3, 6, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful, even though the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant land pursuant to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act should be reduced or exempted, since all of the instant land and substitute land were acquired by himself/herself.
(b)as shown in the attached text of the relevant statute;