A. The meaning of "land cultivated by oneself" under subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 1988) which is subject to the non-taxation of capital gains tax

(b) Requirements for non-taxation of capital gains tax on farmland substituted by substitute land.

A. The term “land cultivated by oneself” under subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198) refers to “a land cultivated by oneself”, and it does not mean only a dry field directly dry field, tending, harvesting, and harvesting.

B. Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the same Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that no capital gains tax shall be imposed on the substitute farmland. Since Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the same Act and Article 14 (7) of the same Act provide that the purpose of this Act is to protect farmers by allowing and guaranteeing free substitution of farmland, thereby promoting the development and encouragement of agriculture by protecting farmers, it shall be ① the previous land and new acquired land is farmland, ② the transferor is the person who self-defenss the land at the time of transfer of the previous land, ③ the person who acquires new land for the purpose of self-defensing, and the land self-defens

A. Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 14 (3) and (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 198), Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) and Article 14 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1022 Decided February 23, 1988, 87Nu706 Decided March 8, 1988

Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu314 delivered on June 9, 1989

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the 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 he has cultivated continuously for 8 years or longer from the time of acquisition and is subject to taxation of farmland tax (including the case of non-taxation, non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection) is non-taxable income, and "land cultivated by himself" under subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the same Act refers to "in his own responsibility and responsibility for his own calculation", it means not only the direct rice field, dry field, dry field, tending, tending, and harvesting the farmland (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1022 of Feb. 23, 198).

In addition, Article 5 subparagraph 6 (j) of the same Act and Article 14 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that no capital gains tax shall be imposed on farmland substituted for the purpose of farming. 1) The requirements for substitute farmland shall be limited to the case where other farmland is acquired within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland: Provided, That in the case where other farmland is acquired within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, it shall be limited to the case where the previous farmland is transferred within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected macroscopic evidence that the plaintiff continued to cultivate the land of 475-3 in Gwangju-dong 475-3 on November 25, 1987 until the time of transfer on August 14, 1987, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff acquired the land of 13-1,4, and7 in Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, and employed the non-party, and transferred the land of 13-1,4, and dry field on August 22, 1987 as well as August 29 of the same year, 1987. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff acquired the land of 307-1, and 2,000,000-dong 307-3,000,000,000 for the purpose of self-coping as farmland on November 25, 1987.

However, according to the plaintiff's factual relations concerning Gap's above assertion 475-3 land in light of Gap's evidence Nos. 9 and evidence Nos. 21 and 22 as well as witness at the court below's testimony, the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's own land, is found to have cultivated the plaintiff's 5 rice and 100,000 won per year after he was employed by the plaintiff as to the above land and received from the plaintiff's 10,000 won per month, and there is no counter-proof to the above evidence, so the above evidence will be credibility. The plaintiff's new evidence Nos. 21 and 22 as to the above land was acquired for the purpose of warning Gap's previous land, Gap's new evidence Nos. 10,000 won per annum and 10,000 won per annum, 10,0000 won per annum, and 10,010,000 won per annum No.

However, the court below rejected all of the above reliable evidence without any reasonable explanation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the judgment of evidence against the rule of evidence is against the rule of experience, it has committed an unlawful act that affected the judgment. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)