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 December 30, 1976, the Plaintiff acquired 1,850/1,996 shares from Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government 6,598§³ B from C.
B. Since January 6, 1993, part of the above land was divided into 6,308 square meters of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D, and the Plaintiff acquired 6,116/6,308 shares of the divided land (hereinafter “instant land”) through the division of co-ownership.
C. On February 10, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to E and F KRW 638,00,000,000, acquisition value of KRW 61,989,315, special long-term holding deduction amounting to KRW 172,803,205, and the amount determined as KRW 128,368,842, the capital gains tax amount of KRW 0 was determined on May 3, 2012.
Since then, the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff did not own the land of this case through a survey on the reduction of capital gains tax and post-management of the plaintiff, and confirmed that the land of this case was non-business land on October 1, 2013, the plaintiff was excluded from reduction of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 111133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the plaintiff did not own the land of this case for not less than eight years after the plaintiff acquired the land of this case and did not directly cultivate the land of this case. Further, the defendant decided that the special deduction for long-term possession of the land of this case constitutes non-business land of this case under Articles 95 and 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11146, Jan. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) including the special deduction for long-term possession of the land of this case for not more than three years.
E. On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds of its dissatisfaction, and on April 3, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.
【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap.