Whether it is possible to prove the fact that it is farmland under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act, which is exempt from capital gains tax, by other data not provided for in Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (affirmative)

Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the method of verifying self-owned farmland for not less than eight years for which the transfer income tax is not levied under subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act, is merely an example of the method of proving the fact which has been cultivated continuously for not less than eight years, and if it is recognized that the fact has been self-employed for not less than eight years by other reliable

Article 5 (6) (d) of the Income Tax Act and Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu576 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985,1578) 86Nu526 delivered on October 14, 1986 (Gong1986,3057) 86Nu265 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987,821)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu6523 delivered on October 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the method of confirming self-employed farmland for not less than eight years which has been exempted from the capital gains tax under subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act, is merely an example of the method of proving the fact which has been cultivated continuously for not less than eight years, and the capital gains tax should be exempted if it is acknowledged as a self-employed fact for not less than eight years based on other reliable materials (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu576, Oct. 22, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu526, Oct. 14, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu265, Apr. 14, 1987). Accordingly, the court below's determination based on the above opinion is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence-finding principles.

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 Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)