(b) The burden of proving the existence of the transferred land, which is exempt from the capital gains tax;

C. Whether Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) and Article 72(3)5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (amended by Presidential Decree No. 980 of the National Tax Service Directive) constitute invalid provisions against the principle of no taxation without law (negative)

D. A letter of promulgation of National Tax Service’s instructions (negative)

B. In the case of the preceding paragraph, the transferor should actively prove the fact of the transferred land.

C. Article 72(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989) provides for transaction designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service pursuant to Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989) (the National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of the National Tax Service Directive), but its form is administrative rules. However, unless there are special circumstances, such as the function to supplement the above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the combination of the function to have the same effect as the legal order (foreign effect) with the same effect as the legal order of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the designation of speculative transaction is not the legal basis for taxation based on the actual transaction price of the capital gains tax. However, since the designation of speculative transaction by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service is not the law itself, the above provision of the Income Tax Act cannot be deemed as unconstitutional.

D. Paragraph (1) is merely a transaction that falls under Article 170 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in the form of administrative rules, and thus, it is reasonable to indicate, promulgate, or notify it in an appropriate manner, and its validity cannot be denied solely on the ground that it was not promulgated or announced

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

With respect to the First and Three Points:

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff was living together with his family in Yangsan-gun, Yangsan-gun with farmland listed in the attached list of the judgment below, but it is also a place of his resident registration. However, from January 5, 1973 to Busan Dong-dong, Busan-dong, which is the family's resident registration place, the plaintiff was involved in the management of the Yangsan-gun market, and currently has been involved in the housing construction business in the name of the original industry. At this time, the plaintiff was announced as an industrial area on January 20, 1986, and it was estimated that the above farmland will be occupied in the future, and that the plaintiff purchased the above farmland from 20 meters old to 38,000,000 old roads (which will be expanded to 35 meters) and then purchased the above farmland from 1 to 298, and it is justified that the court below's decision of 1 to 296,000 won or less, and that there were no errors in the law of 91 to purchase the above farmland from 197.6.27.

In addition, with regard to farmland substituted by cultivation necessity under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 198), where the area of newly acquired farmland is transferred within one year from the date of transfer of previous farmland, income from such transfer shall be exempted from income tax. In this case, the previous land and new acquired land shall be farmland, and the transferor shall be a person who must own the land at the time of the transfer of previous land, and the transferor shall be a person who will own the land at the time of the transfer of the previous land (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu706 delivered on Mar. 8, 198). The phrase "self-Governing farmland" refers to "self-determination and responsibility of the farmer," and it does not mean directly cultivating, cultivating, and harvesting dry field (see Supreme Court Decision 200Nu270688 delivered on Feb. 28, 1988).

However, if the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff's sale after the acquisition of farmland above (1) through (8) cannot be deemed to have been sold or transferred to substitute for the purpose of cultivation, and it shall not be deemed to have been sold after the temporary acquisition of short-term capital gains by taking advantage of the necessity for cultivation. Thus, the court below's decision that Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of the transfer, does not fall under Article 14 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the judgment of the party members of the lawsuit shall not

Therefore, it is not reasonable to argue that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Income Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree, and by violating the precedents.

With respect to the second ground:

The burden of proof regarding the requirements for taxation and the legality of taxation is imposed on the defendant, who is the tax authority, but the transferor of the transferred land must actively prove the fact that the transferor asserts it (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu402 delivered on October 13, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu722 delivered on October 14, 1986). The court below confirmed the facts as mentioned in the preceding paragraph and decided that the defendant's taxation is legitimate, and therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below violated the legal principles as to the burden of proof or the precedent of the theory of lawsuit. Accordingly, the argument is groundless.

With respect to the fourth point:

Article 72(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) provides for a transaction designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (hereinafter “dumping transaction”) pursuant to Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Mar. 22, 1989), although its form is administrative rules, it is a view that it would be a basis for taxation based on the actual transaction price of capital gains tax, unless there are special circumstances such as having the function to supplement the above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and having the same effect as the legal order of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (foreign effect) in combination with it, and thus, it cannot be said that Article 86Nu484 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12870 of Sep. 29, 198). However, since the designation of the National Tax Service cannot be deemed to be in its own form and thus, it cannot be deemed as 17000.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)