Whether capital gains tax is non-taxation in case where the husband who lives together transfers the land used for agriculture by his wife who is the owner of the land, and the husband uses the newly acquired land for agriculture (affirmative)

The land transferor is merely a female who is engaged in domestic affairs as the wife of a farmer, and even if he is not an actual person engaged in agriculture, his husband who lives in the same household and uses the transferred land for agriculture, and if the newly acquired land was used for agriculture, it shall be deemed that the transferred land was self-feasible, and if the land was used for agriculture, it shall be deemed that the land was self-fasible, and thus, the farmland owned by him shall be exempted from taxation.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 of the Income Tax Act, Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12564 of December 31, 198)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

Ma-dong

The Director of Budget Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu6367 delivered on October 19, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

1. The court below recognized that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case based on its adopted evidence, and determined that the income from the transfer of the land of this case should be exempted as substitute land according to the necessity for cultivation pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564, Dec. 31, 198).

There is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit in the above recognition process of the court below. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff merely uses the previous land for agriculture even if the plaintiff's husband living and living together uses the previous land for agriculture even though he is not actually engaged in agriculture as the wife of Kim Young-young, who is a farmer, and the newly acquired land for agriculture, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have used the above farmland for agriculture and therefore the farmland under his ownership should be considered as substitute land (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu706 delivered on March 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4567 delivered on February 27, 190). Thus, there is no violation of law scenario such as theory of lawsuit.

2. The judgment of the court below that recognized the transfer land as farmland as of the date of the transfer of this case. Thus, there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit and incomplete hearing.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)