[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1990.12.1.(885),2328]
Requirements for non-taxation of capital gains tax on substitute farmland
In order to constitute “income accruing from substitute land for farmland” under Article 5 subparag. 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988), if the transfer income tax is not imposed under Article 5 subparag. 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act, it shall be limited to the case where the transferor has developed the previous land and another substitute land, and the transferor has acquired new land for the purpose of self-defense.
Article 5 (6) (j) of the Income Tax Act, Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Yellow Eulpha
Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office
Daegu High Court Decision 88Gu804 delivered on May 30, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal and additional grounds of appeal are also examined.
In order to constitute “income accruing from substitute land for farmland” under Article 5 subparag. 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988), where capital gains tax is not imposed under Article 5 subparag. 6 (j) of the same Act, it shall be deemed that all the previous land and substitute land are farmland, and the transferor has replaced the previous land as of the date of transfer and acquired new land for the purpose of self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4567, Feb. 27, 1990).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff would be exempt from the taxation because there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff actually performed the transfer of the land of this case at the time of the original transfer, and based on the macroscopic evidence, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from 20,200,000 won in price for the above land from the highest gold, and the defendant's taxation of this case is legitimate. The court below's decision is just even if the court below examined the process of cooking the evidence conducted in accordance with the records, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law as to misapprehension of legal principles or lack of reason
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 on the bench.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)