The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is clear that the court below found that, in selling the land in this case and a building constructed on the land in this case, the plaintiffs set the total sale price without distinguishing the price of the land and the value of the building from the sale price. Thus, there is no error in the grounds for appeal or the omission of judgment as pointed out in the grounds for appeal. In addition, the process of the evidence cooking which the court below found the above facts is justified, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the scope of application of the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Settlement of Evidence by violating the rules of evidence, or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the admissibility of the evidence of the disposal document. The grounds for appeal on this point

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, where the plaintiffs transfer the land and buildings in this case, "in case a business operator supplies the land and buildings built on the land, and the buildings and other structures together" under Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Evaluation of Land, etc., the supply price of the buildings and other structures shall be based on the actual transaction amount: Provided, That where the distinction between the value of the land and the value of the buildings and other structures from the actual transaction value is unclear, it shall be calculated in proportion to the value calculated according to the standard market price under the Local Tax Act as of the date of the supply contract, and after the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13199 of Dec. 31, 190), Article 48-2 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "if there is a value appraised by an appraisal corporation under the Act on the Evaluation of Land, etc., the supply price of the buildings in this case shall not be calculated separately from each of the above land and the supply price of the buildings to be supplied.

The proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the method of calculating the standard market price under the Local Tax Act as a reasonable method of calculating the value of supply of the building subject to value-added tax in a case where the entrepreneur concurrently supplies the land and the building attached to the land, etc., and the real value of the land subject to value-added tax is unclear, in light of the legislative intent and content, the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act refers to the objective exchange value at the time of supply in a case where the real transaction is conducted by the parties in a case where the value of the building subject to value-added tax is divided into the value of the land and the building, etc., in light of the principle of substantial taxation. Thus, even if the market price appraisal value distinction between the value of the building at the time of supply and that of the building, etc. is based on an appraisal organization that is trusted, the market price appraisal value or the total market price calculated in proportion to the value of the building, etc., cannot be seen as above.

Nevertheless, even before the establishment of Article 48-2 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the court below held that the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) may be interpreted not to apply to the case where there is a separate appraisal on the building and land value at the time of supply by an appraisal agency. However, there is a violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of application under the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but the conclusion that the defendant calculated the supply value of each of the above buildings under the proviso of Article 48-2 (3) of the same Act and rendered a legitimate disposition of this case does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out on the premise that the above erroneous interpretation of the proviso of Article 48-2 (3)

3. Therefore, all appeals of this case are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)