(b) In the case of farmland the owner of which actually resides, whether or not it is exempt from the imposition of land excess profit tax, regardless of whether or not resident registration is made;

B. The idle land in the Land Excess Profit Tax Act refers to a land which is not used efficiently even if a landowner exercises his/her ownership and can use the land in question according to its original purpose, and it is the purpose of the same Act to recover excess gains due to the increase in the land price of such idle land. In light of the purport of the same Act, in the case of farmland in fact residing and self-fiscing, it is merely merely that Article 12(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192) provides a resident registration for the period of six months as one of the valuable evidentiary materials to verify that the owner actually resides in the location of the farmland.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

In the lawsuit, the taxable period of this case is from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 192, and the plaintiff is residing in the land location of this case after September 1, 1991, and the court below determined that the plaintiff did not have any relationship with the plaintiff as a result of confusion between the scheduled taxation period and the taxable period. Thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff did not have any relationship with the land of this case as a result of confusion between the scheduled taxation period and the scheduled taxation period. In addition, Article 21 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4672 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that the time when the liability for payment of the land excess profit tax for the scheduled taxation period expires, and it can be independently asserted against the taxation disposition of the land excess profit tax for the scheduled taxation period, the taxation of the scheduled taxation period for the scheduled taxation period should be deemed independent from the taxation disposition for the taxation period of the taxation period of the land excess profit tax for the scheduled taxation period of this case.

(2) On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s taxation against the Plaintiff was lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements that the Plaintiff should obtain resident registration for at least six months as required under Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13198, Dec. 31, 1990; Presidential Decree No. 13655, May 30, 192; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had resided in the same place adjacent to the farmland of this case, and thus, it cannot be excluded from the idle land, which was stipulated in the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, even if the Plaintiff did not self-re-re-re-re-confised

Article 8(1) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act provides for idle land, etc. subject to taxation of land excess profit tax among land owned by an individual, and subparagraph 5(a) provides that the owner of which does not reside in a location of the farmland under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, or farmland which is not cultivated by himself/herself is one of the same, and Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a person who has registered as a resident for at least six months as of the end of the taxable period and actually resides in a place including an area within eight kilometers from the location of a Si/Gu, Eup/Myeon, or any other Si/Gu, Eup/Myeon, or farmland adjacent thereto, which is located in the same Si

However, in light of the purpose of the Act, the idle land in the Land Excess Profit Tax Act refers to a land in which a landowner exercises ownership and can use the land in question according to its original purpose, and is not used efficiently, and it is necessary to recover excess gains due to the increase in land price of such idle land. In fact, in the case of farmland, it should be excluded from the subject of imposition of land excess gains tax regardless of whether it is resident registration or not in the case of farmland, and if so, the provision of resident registration for six months under Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree is limited to the fact that the owner actually resides in the location of the land.

According to the records, since the plaintiff actually resided with her husband in an area adjacent to the location of the farmland of this case, and even though he did not have registered as the plaintiff, the decision of the court below that the farmland of this case cannot be excluded from idle land, which is stipulated in the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, shall be deemed to constitute an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles of the above Enforcement Decree, and therefore, the argument of this point is with merit.

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)