In fact, where there is a difference between the date of registration and the date of registration, the validity of a disposition imposing capital gains tax for the transfer of the farmland.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act provides that any income accruing from the transfer of land cultivated by himself/herself for not less than eight consecutive years until the time of transfer shall be exempted from the transfer income tax. Thus, the disposition of transfer income tax, etc., which is imposed on a person who has acquired farmland for not less than eight years regardless of the date of registration, is a serious defect in the principle of substantial taxation. However, even though the disposition of transfer income tax, etc., which is imposed on the person who has acquired farmland for not less than eight years, is a disposition of grave defect in the principle of substantial taxation, it cannot be said that the existence of the above defect is objectively obvious because it is apparent that the person who acquired or acquired the land did

Article 5 subparagraph 6 of the Income Tax Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Head of the Office of Government

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu529 delivered on May 11, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The invalidation of an administrative act is a significant and obvious defect in the administrative act, which exists in appearance as an administrative act, but actually means that the administrative act has no effect as an administrative act, and thus a lawsuit seeking nullification of an administrative act is allowed. The reason why an administrative act becomes null and void is that it cannot take effect from the beginning of the law, or that it exists as an administrative act in appearance. The reason why the administrative act becomes null and void is classified into several forms, but the illegality of the administrative act is significant and obvious, i.e., the existence of the defect objectively., the

According to the court below's lawful determination, the plaintiff acquired from non-party 1 on January 1, 1967 a total of 2,552 square meters of the answers to three parcels, non-party 2 on December 30, 1979, and transferred it to non-party 2 on December 30, 197. However, the registration procedure is that the acquisition was made on June 10, 1980 to December 18, 1980 (the date of registration for each parcel was different) respectively.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act provides that capital gains tax shall be exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of land subject to farmland tax, which has been self-sufficient for not less than eight consecutive years until the date of transfer. Thus, as to the plaintiff who has self-employed land of this case for not less than eight years in fact according to the principle of substantial taxation, capital gains tax and defense tax thereon cannot be imposed on the capital gains accruing from the transfer of the land of this case under the principle of substantial taxation. Thus, it is evident that there is a serious defect in the disposition of imposition, such as

However, with respect to the approval of the invalidation of the disposition of this case as a matter of course, the existence of the above defects must be objectively clear, and as determined by the court below, it cannot be said that the existence of the above defects is objectively obvious because it is apparent that the acquisition and transfer date of the land of this case did not own the plaintiff for not less than eight years on the register, and the existence of the above defects cannot be viewed as the invalidation of the disposition of this case as a matter of course, and therefore there is no reason for appeal, which is the object of the objection.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)