beta
Main Issues
The nature of Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act
Summary of Judgment
The provisions of Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes the method of verifying land cultivated by oneself for not less than 8 years, does not stipulate it as the necessary supporting material of fact, which is farmland owned and continuously cultivated, but merely interpret it as the exemplary provision.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 83Nu419 Delivered on October 25, 1983
Plaintiff-Appellee
[Judgment of the court below]
Defendant-Appellant
Head of Namgu Tax Office
Judgment of the lower court
Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu33 delivered on June 14, 1985
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
In light of the records, the court below's determination that the part of 146,785 of the land of this case was just and it was farmland at the time of transfer until the plaintiff transferred to the non-party on April 23, 1983, and that it was farmland at the time of transfer, and there is no error of law such as theory. The purport of the provision that the land which the plaintiff cultivated continuously for 8 years or more under Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act is confirmed by the copy of the register or a copy of the land cadastre and that the land should be the land which is confirmed as of the date of transfer by the certificate issued by the head of Si/Eup/Myeon, and it is not a necessary supporting document of the fact that it is farmland owned and continuously cultivated, and it is interpreted as an exemplary provision, so the court below's determination that the land of this case was farmland at the time of transfer for 8 years or more under Article 5 (2) 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)