Suwon District Court 2016Gudan6911 ( October 30, 2016)

8. Whether or not the person has become a minor

The interpretation of tax laws is to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the law, unless there are special circumstances, such as the requirement for taxation or the requirement for tax exemption or the requirement for tax exemption, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds, and in particular, it is also consistent with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be seen as clearly preferential provisions

Transfer Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2017Nu38692 ( August 11, 2017)

Song*

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gudan6911 Decided October 20, 2017

oly 23, 2017

1, 2017.08

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's transfer income belonging to the plaintiff on May 11, 2015 for the year 2011.

The corrective imposition disposition of tax 14,033,750 won (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this judgment is as follows. ② The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are justifiable in light of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to this court, and the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court except for the evidence attached with the determination that there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The “Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act” in Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be construed as “Article 70(1)

Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(2) and 67(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) require that a person who resides in a location of farmland for at least three years and engages in cultivating or cultivating at least half of crops or perennial plants in his/her own labor in order to be subject to reduction of capital gains tax on income arising from substitute land for farmland in the first instance court. Meanwhile, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations under the principle of no taxation without law is not allowed to interpret “in accordance with the provisions of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act,” and it is not permissible to expand or analogically interpret the said provisions as explicitly preferential provisions without any justifiable reason. In particular, it conforms with the principle of no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Du21321, Dec. 231, 2012; 2013Du1313131.

○ The 3th sentence of the first instance court and the 3th sentence of the said 12th sentence consisting of the 3th sentence "Maa" and "Maa".

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.