Whether the farmland which the owner resides in a place other than the location of farmland with another occupation and is cultivated by employing another person under his responsibility and account falls under the self-Cultivating farmland under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act (affirmative)

Even if a farmland owner resides in a place other than his/her farmland, if he/she cultivates the farmland by employing another person under his/her responsibility and account, it shall be deemed that the land falls under the self-arable farmland of Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act.

Article 5 ( Subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act.

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

J. M. M. M.O.

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu825 delivered on June 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

According to the records, the court below's decision was based on the evidence of this case, and the plaintiff was employed under his own account and responsibility after acquiring it on December 12, 1975 and directly operated a rice farmer's house. Even if the land category was changed to the site by a land readjustment project on December 1981, the plaintiff continued to operate a rice farmer's house continuously as in the previous case even after the land category was changed to the site, but since the above land was cut down at the end of the end of 1984, it was impossible for a rice farmer to grow and sell approximately 150 franking trees, which were the land owner's fright tree, and it was sold to the Korea Land Development Corporation on December 1986. The court below's decision was not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above land's 6th anniversary of the change of land category, the plaintiff's disposal of this case's fright tree's 400 fright, which was not a farmland owner's 6th of this case's land.

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 Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)