Whether it is included in the "land cultivated by oneself" under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 1988) which is exempt from capital gains tax in case of employing another person under his own account and responsibility (affirmative)

The term "land cultivated by oneself" under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988) which is the object of non-taxation of capital gains tax includes not only the case where one directly runs dry field or dry field, but also the case where one employs another person under his own account and responsibility to do so.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 198)

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu145 decided Dec. 24, 1985 (Gong1986,341) 86Nu204 decided Jul. 8, 1986 (Gong1986,1013) 89Nu4567 decided Feb. 27, 1990 (Gong190,818)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1478 decided May 1, 200

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8899 delivered on February 22, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

According to Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198) and Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988), income from the transfer of land which has been cultivated by himself continuously for 8 years or longer from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer and is subject to taxation of farmland tax (including non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and non-collection of small amount) is non-taxation. The term "land cultivated by himself" in the above provision includes not only the case where he directly dry field or dry field, but also the case where he takes a farming house by employing other persons under his own account and responsibility (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu145 of Dec. 24, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu68479 of Jul. 8, 1986; 207Nu6975794, Jul. 294, 29707.

The court below, based on its adopted evidence, continued to use the land of this case as a answer or an actual field, and the plaintiff has employed and cultivated only Nonparty Kim Young under the plaintiff's account and responsibility for not less than eight years from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer. According to the certificate of non-taxation on farmland tax issued by the head of Gangnam-gu Office issued by the head of Gangnam-gu, it recognized the fact that the land is farmland as of the date of transfer and recognized the fact that it is confirmed as farmland as of the date of transfer, and issued the disposition of taxation on the land of this case as illegal. The above determination of the court below is just and there is no error of law

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 Young-young (Presiding Justice)