The confirmation data on whether the land falls under the “land cultivated continuously for not less than eight years” as provided in subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act.

Whether or not "land cultivated for at least eight consecutive years" under subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act corresponds to "land cultivated for at least eight consecutive years" under Article 5 (6) (d) of the same Act is intended to reduce the tax burden following the transfer of farmland as part of the land farming policy. Therefore, it is not always possible to recognize it only by the document under Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, but also by other reliable materials.

Article 5 (6) (d) of the Income Tax Act, Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu945 delivered on July 2, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case originally owned by the non-party and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the plaintiff's name on October 31, 1972, and developed the land as a dry field and had continuously cultivated the land for not less than eight years from April 1973 to May 1981 at the time of the transfer of this case. In light of the records, the court below found that the above fact-finding measures of the court below are just and there were no errors in the law of illegality or incomplete hearing in violation of the rules of evidence in the process of selecting evidence, and the issue of whether the "land continuously cultivated for not less than eight years" under subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act is not a document that can only be recognized in accordance with Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but it can be interpreted that there is no other document that the plaintiff's credibility and credibility can be interpreted as 98Da18681,00.

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 Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)