Whether income from the transfer of land designated as a residential area is exempt from tax on the public cadastral book (negative)

Only in the cadastral record, the land has been designated as a residential area within the urban planning zone at the time of the transfer, and the land has not been cultivated as a rice field or dry field through the previous and previous consultations, and the transfer of such land does not constitute a case where farmland is substituted for a cultivation necessity under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the income accrued from the transfer of land is not subject to non-taxation.

Article 5 (6) (j) of the Income Tax Act, Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu781 delivered on October 21, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff’s Attorney are also examined.

Examining the judgment below in comparison with the records, the court below is justified in finding that the evidence as stated in the judgment below was prepared and the plaintiff transferred 44,100,000 won to the non-party 1 and the land of 185 square meters acquired from the non-party 2 within one year after its transfer are all land categories only in the cadastral record, and the land category was already designated as a residential area within the urban planning zone at the time of its transfer or acquisition, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or insufficient evidence violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no error of finding that the plaintiff's transfer of the land was about the non-taxation of the land under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was enforced on September 19, 1979, which is the time when the taxation requirement of this case occurred, and if the plaintiff acquires the land within the previous 1 year from the day of transfer of the farmland, it does not require the plaintiff to acquire the land as a substitute land under Article 15 (5).

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)