Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

The purport of subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4661 of Dec. 31, 1993) and Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083 of Dec. 31, 1993) stipulate that income accruing from the transfer of farmland as of the transfer date in which one has cultivated for not less than eight years from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer shall be non-taxation is that the owner of the farmland reduces the tax burden due to the transfer of farmland as part of the land farming policy, and this includes not only the case in which one has cultivated himself but also the case in which one has made his family living or living together with his family.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4661 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 14 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083 of Dec. 31, 1993)

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu706 Decided March 8, 198 (Gong1988,634) 89Nu7412 Decided May 11, 1990 (Gong1990,1291) 90Nu4082 Decided October 30, 1990 (Gong1980,2469)

Plaintiff

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu165 delivered on August 11, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected non-party 1's allegation that the above non-party 1 had been cultivated for 8 years or more from the time of the plaintiff's acquisition of the land of this case until July 11, 192, and the land of this case was originally owned by the plaintiff's assistance division. When the plaintiff's assistance division was deceased without losses, the non-party 1's assistance division was adopted as the ex post facto assistance division of the plaintiff's assistance division, and the above land was cultivated as the above non-party 2 and the non-party 1's above land was treated as the non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 4 and the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 26's non-party 9's.

However, even according to the court below's decision, the plaintiff had been living together with the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 4, who is the father's 1 and the above non-party 8, who is the above father's 1 and living together with the above non-party 4, who is the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 8, who was living in the above-mentioned Gyeongyang-gun ( Address 1 omitted), and had his place of residence in Seoul after 29 years old, and there is no other evidence to view that the plaintiff engaged in other types of work for the above period of living together with the father's 1 and the non-party 7, who is the mother's family members until the plaintiff moves to Seoul, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 4, who is the non-party 1 and the non-party 8's family members including the above land of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 8's family members should not be considered as 9.

Therefore, the court below rejected the above reliable evidence without any reasonable reasoning, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that the land of this case does not constitute self-farmland for not less than eight years on the ground of the reasoning of its explanation, and it violates the rules of evidence by cooking evidence contrary to the rule of experience. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act and Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)