B. Whether Article 19(2) and Article 12(1) of the Farmland Reform Act constitute “related Acts and subordinate statutes” under Article 170(4)2(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

(b) An act of acquiring farmland in excess of three information, which is the limit of possession of farmland per farm household, by a corporation which is not a farm household and is unable to acquire farmland, is a violation of Articles 19(2) and 12(1) of the Farmland Reform Act. This constitutes a violation of the provisions of Article 170(4)2(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act which provides for cases where taxes can be imposed based on the actual transaction value.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party, the father of the plaintiffs (the non-party, who is the father of the plaintiff in this case, died on June 24, 1993) acquired the land of this case 25 pieces from May 30, 1989 to June 30 of the same year, including the farmland of this case, and concluded a contract to sell it to Hanjin Co., Ltd. from the end of May 1989 to the end of October of the same year, so acquisition and transfer transaction of the land of this case are almost at the same time. The acquisition value of the land of this case is 2,111,00,000 won, its transfer value is 3,425,000 won, and the transfer value is 1,341,000,000 won, and it is also 1,341,000,000 won, and it is not erroneous in the rules of evidence finding that the remainder of farmland acquired after transferring the farmland of this case was 1385,00.

In addition, Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that capital gains tax shall not be imposed on farmland substituted for cultivation necessity. This is to protect farmers by allowing and guaranteeing free substitution of farmland. In this case, the previous land and new land shall be farmland, and at the time of transfer of the previous land, the transferor shall be a person with a own land and a new land shall be acquired for the purpose of self-defense. In this case, the former land shall be presumed to be a new land for the purpose of self-defense, and it shall not be subject to non-taxation under the above Acts and subordinate statutes in the case of speculative farmland transactions, such as the sale of farmland acquired and sold after temporary acquisition of low-term capital gains (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu706, Feb. 23, 198; 90Nu639, May 22, 1990).

2. On the second ground for appeal

It is a violation of Article 19(2) and Article 12(1) of the Farmland Reform Act to acquire farmland in excess of three information, which is the limit of possession of farmland per farming household, because it is not a farming household, and is therefore a violation of the provisions of Article 170(4)2(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates cases where real estate can be taxed based on the actual transaction price.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and it cannot be argued against the court below in other opinions.

However, the court below erred in its judgment that the transfer margin should be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price on the ground that the non-party's 25 parcel of land transferred falls under Article 25 of the same Act, but the non-party's 6 parcel of land, other than farmland, should be determined on the basis of the actual transaction price. However, according to the records, the non-party's 6 parcel of land acquired on May 27, 1989 and June 29 of the same year and transferred it on December 18 of the same year (the date of receipt of ownership transfer registration). Therefore, with respect to the above 6 parcel of land, it can be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price as the "case where the real estate is transferred within one year after the acquisition thereof" as provided in item (c) of the same subparagraph. Thus,

3. On the third ground for appeal

The court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' assertion that the calculation of gains from the transfer of the land of this case was erroneous in the calculation of real acquisition value, or that the land of 450-2 Mari-ri 450-2 constitutes the site of one house for one household which meets the non-taxation requirement is justifiable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the calculation of real acquisition value, such as theory of lawsuit, there

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)