The meaning of "self-employed farmer" under Article 67-7 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act

Article 67-6 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4451 of Dec. 27, 1991) provides that a self-employed farmer prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be referred to as a "self-employed farmer"; therefore, a self-employed farmer prescribed in Article 67-7 (1) of the same Act refers to a self-employed farmer prescribed in Article 67-6 (1) of the same Act, that is, a person who falls under any subparagraph of Article 55-5 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13545 of Dec. 31, 191). Thus, a person who has not been directly engaged in farming for two or more consecutive years retroactively from the date of acquisition of the relevant farmland, etc. shall not be exempted from the gift tax pursuant to Article 67-7 (1)

Articles 67-6(1) and 67-7(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4451, Dec. 27, 1991); Article 55-5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13545, Dec. 31, 1991)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu1820 delivered on May 10, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Since Article 67-6 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4451 of Dec. 27, 1991) provides that "self-employed farmer prescribed by the Presidential Decree" shall be referred to as "self-employed farmer", a self-employed farmer prescribed in Article 67-7 (1) of the same Act shall be deemed to mean a person who falls under any subparagraph of Article 55-5 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13545 of Dec. 31, 191), that is, a self-employed farmer prescribed in Article 67-6 (1) of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13545 of Dec. 31, 199). Thus, a person who has not been directly engaged in farming for more than two years retroactively from the date of acquisition

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 67-7 (1) of the above Act. We are without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the decision that the plaintiff could not be deemed to have been engaged in farming continuously for not less than two years retrospectively from the date of acquisition of the land in this case is justifiable, and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)