The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal on this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on October 30, 1976 and transferred it to the non-party Korean Red Cross on February 28, 1980, and made a preliminary return of asset transfer margin (3.31 of the same year) to the defendant 10.15 of the same year, the court below decided that the actual acquisition value was 36,000,000 won, and the actual transfer value was 41,650,000 won, respectively, and that the above actual transaction value reported by the plaintiff was 204,00 won. The defendant denied the transfer value among the above actual transaction value reported by the plaintiff on the ground that the acquisition value was considerably low compared to the standard market price, but the transfer value was calculated based on the standard market price, and the transfer value was calculated by deducting the above voluntary payment tax amount, and there was no illegality in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the actual transfer value of the real estate of this case as alleged by the court below.

2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the value assessed by the so-called land price index conversion method as stipulated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy pursuant to Article 115(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the real estate in this case was at the time of its transfer, but there was no such rate at the time of its acquisition, and then it is clear that the tax amount is calculated by assuming each conversion value by the land price index as the tax base amount in calculating the registration tax and acquisition value as necessary expenses required

However, according to the provisions of Article 111(2) of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 2593, Mar. 12, 1973; Act No. 2593) and Article 29(1) of the former Registration Tax Act (Act No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976) which was enforced at the time of the acquisition of the real estate of this case, the base amount for acquisition tax and registration tax shall be the amount reported by the acquisitor (registration applicant) and if there is no indication of the reported or reported value or if the reported value falls short of the standard market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be determined based on the current market price. Thus, in this case where there is no data on whether the plaintiff reported the tax base at the time of the acquisition of the real estate of this case or the reported value of the real estate at the time of its acquisition, it is reasonable to view that the tax base amount paid by the plaintiff is the tax base amount calculated by the standard market price of local tax, and it is clear and reasonable to interpret the above provision of Article 115(3) of the former Local Tax Act.

3. Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the part against the defendant in the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal on this part of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)