(b) The case holding that it does not constitute an speculative transaction as stipulated in the preceding paragraph, since the land purchased for the construction of housing was held for seven years or longer and sold for the purpose of raising business funds;

C. Whether Article 72(3)8 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (National Tax Service Directive No. 980) is valid (negative)

(b) If a landowner owns the land purchased for housing construction for not less than seven years as it is impossible for him to borrow it, and then sells it for the purpose of raising the funds for the business to be run by him, such a case does not constitute the “transaction confirmed to be an speculative transaction corresponding to subparagraphs 1 through 4” under Article 72(3)5 of the National Tax Service Directive.

C. Article 72(3) Subparagraph 8 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987) provides that when the head of a tax office, etc. recognizes an speculative transaction as one of the speculative transactions after undergoing a tax investigation related to the speculative restraint and consulting with the Fair Trade Commission, Article 72(3)1 through 7 of the same Act provides that “The provisions of Article 72(3)5 of the same Act are different from the provisions of Article 72(3) of the same Act, the provisions of Article 72(3)1 through 7 of the same Act are different from the provisions of Article 72(3) of the same Act, and the provisions of Article 72(3) of the same Act do not specify the types of speculative transactions, rather than those of objective provisions, the transfer price shall be based on the standard market price, and the actual transaction price shall be based on the arbitrary discretion of the tax authority in determining

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) The lower court: (a) during the period from October 18, 1985 to November 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff transferred six parcels of land located in Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu to Busan Metropolitan City (B) on May 28, 1987, respectively; (b) based on Article 72(3)5 of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 946, Jan. 26, 1987; National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987; and (c) concluded that each of the above transfers was an speculation transaction; and (d) based on the proviso to Article 23(4) of the Income Tax Act and the proviso to Article 45(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the proviso to Article 72(3)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was clearly applicable to the transfer act in 1987, the lower court determined that each of the above transfer transactions was unlawful on the grounds of taxation authority’s.

(2) First, we examine the transfer income tax of the year 1985 and that of the defense tax.

Article 23(4) and Article 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act provides that the acquisition value and transfer value, which forms the basis for calculating gains on transfer, shall be based on the standard market price in principle, in exceptional cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that one of the cases where the actual transaction price is applied pursuant to delegation of the above Acts, “where it is possible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition of real estate in a transaction designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service,” and it does not stipulate any provision regarding the procedures for or methods of designation of the transaction deemed necessary for suppressing the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition. Accordingly, Article 72(3) of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property, which provides that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service declared that the designation of a transaction constitutes a violation of Article 97(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, shall be based on the standard market price. The designation of a transaction under the above provision shall be deemed to have an objective effect as a false or fictitious transaction order.

Therefore, the court below's determination that the above provision was invalid under Article 946 and Article 72 (3) 5 of the above National Tax Service Directive is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, and the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

However, the court below, based on the quoted evidence, found that the plaintiff purchased the land located in Songdong for the construction of housing, but held it for not less than seven years due to lack of financing, and held that such case does not constitute "transaction identified as an speculative transaction corresponding to subparagraphs 1 through 4" under Article 72 (3) 5 of the above National Tax Service Directive, and determined that the above provision does not constitute "transaction identified as an speculative transaction corresponding to subparagraphs 1 through 4" in the above National Tax Service Directive. In light of the records, the court below's determination and determination are just and acceptable, and therefore, it cannot be said that the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax and the said defense tax for the portion belonging to the year 1985 against the plaintiff was unlawful.

(3) We examine the transfer income tax of the year 1987 and that of the defense tax.

On January 26, 1987, Article 72(3) of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Taxes (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980) lists speculative transactions designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service following the amendment of Article 72(3) of the above Regulations. Subparagraph 8 provides that "the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the director of a regional tax office, or the head of a regional tax office, upon the audit of speculative transactions and the consultation of the Fair Trade Commission, recognizes such speculative transactions as one of the above speculative transactions." Article 72(3) Subparagraph 8 of the above amended Regulations provides that "The head of a regional tax office (or the head of a regional tax office) has recognized such speculative transactions." Unlike Article 72(3)1 through 7 of the above amended Regulations, Article 72(3) of the above amended Regulations provides that "The provisions of Article 72(3)1 through 7 of the above Act does not stipulate the type of speculative transactions, compared to those provided objectively, that the transaction partner may not be subject to the principle of no taxation without the principle of no taxation without the law.

In this regard, the lower court’s decision that the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 1987 and the same defense tax was unlawful is justifiable, and there is no ground to challenge the lower judgment on the premise that the above provision is valid.

(4) Ultimately, the grounds of appeal are without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)