Subparagraph 6 (j) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the purpose of promoting the development and encouragement of agriculture shall be to protect farmers by allowing and guaranteeing free substitution of farmland. Thus, the previous land and new acquired land shall be farmland; 2. When transferring the previous land, the transferor shall be a person who self-defens the land at the time of the transfer of the previous land, and 3. self-defluence shall not be imposed capital gains tax on the premise that the transferor shall acquire new land for the purpose of self-defluence. Here, the term "self-defluence of farmland" includes not only cases in which farmland is cultivated by himself but

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act, Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1493 delivered on June 15, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that no transfer income tax shall be imposed on farmland substituted for cultivation, and one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland: Provided, That where another farmland is acquired before the transfer of the previous farmland, it shall be limited to the time another farmland is transferred within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland: Provided, That where another farmland is acquired before the transfer of the previous farmland, it shall be limited to the time another farmland is transferred within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiffs transferred the previous land of this case with their parents and siblings on May 9, 1983 and did not directly engage in agriculture as each university student and soldier (it is not a professional soldier) at the time when they newly acquired the land of this case on June 25, 1983, but their parents and siblings who share the same households used the previous land for agriculture and used the new land for agriculture, and the newly acquired land was used for agriculture, and that the plaintiffs should be deemed to own the farmland as substitute for the above farmland.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and its judgment is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no ground for violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)