B. The subject matter of the review of the revocation lawsuit

B. Since a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a taxation disposition is based on the substantive and procedural illegality of the taxation disposition, the subject matter of the trial should be understood as the existence of the taxable value decided by the tax authority. As such, the litigants may assert that the determination of the legality of the taxation disposition is based on all the materials submitted until the closing of argument in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the taxation disposition.

원심판결은 그 이유에서 소득세법(1976.12.22 법률 제2933호) 제23조 제5항 , 제45조 제1항 에 의하면 양도 및 취득가액은 실지거래가액에 의하되 그 실지거래가액이 불분명한 경우에는 그 자산의 양도 및 취득당시의 시가표준액에 의한다고 규정하고 같은법시행령(1977.8.20 령 제8652호) 제170조 제3항 은 법 제23조 제1항 각호 의 자산을 양도한 거주자가 법 제95조 의 규정에 의하여 자산양도차익 예정신고를 하지 아니함으로써 실지거래가액을 알 수 없는때에는 당해 자산의 양도당시의 시가표준액으로 평가한 양도가액에서 취득당시의 시가표준액으로 평가한 취득가액과 양도소득공제액 및 제46조 의 규정에 의한 양도소득 특별공제액을 공제한 금액을 양도소득금액으로 한다하고 제4항 은 위 제3항의 규정에 의하여 양도소득금액의 결정을 받은 거주자가 당해 양도소득에 대하여 과세표준확정신고를 한 때에는 실지거래가액에 따라 그 양도소득금액을 결정할 수 있다고 규정하고 있는바 이러한 규정들을 종합하여 보면 소득세법 제95조 의 자산양도차익 예정신고가 없으면 실지거래가액을 알 수 없는 경우 즉 실지거래가액이 불분명한 겅우에 해당한다 할 것이고 따라서 이 경우는 시가표준액에 따라 양도차익을 계산하여야 한다고 해석되므로 원고가 이 사건 취득 및 양도에 관한 매매계약서를 소지하고 있다 하더라도 그가 같은법 제95조 , 제100조 에 의한 자산양도차익예정신고나 과세표준확정신고를 하지 아니한 이상 피고로서는 실지거래가액이 불분명하므로 위 법조에 따라 시가표준액에 의하여 양도차익을 산정하여야 한다고 판시하고 있다.

However, in a case where there is a dispute over the difference of the tax amount recognized in the taxation disposition, whether or not the tax amount is illegal should be determined by whether the tax amount exceeds the legitimate tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu341 delivered on October 12, 1982). Meanwhile, since the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the taxation disposition is the substantive and procedural illegality of the taxation disposition, the object of the trial should be referred to as the existence of the tax amount determined by the tax authority, so the party in the lawsuit can assert that the party in the lawsuit submitted all the materials concerning the existence and scope of the tax amount determined by the tax authority until the closing of argument (see Supreme Court Decision 78Nu345 delivered on October 14, 1980).

However, Article 23 (4) of the Income Tax Act at the time of this case provides that the transfer value shall, in principle, be based on the actual transaction value, unlike the standard market value at the time of transfer of the relevant asset. However, in case where the actual transaction value is not clear or the actual transaction value is unclear, the transfer income tax shall be determined on the basis of the standard market value. Thus, even if the tax office imposed the transfer income tax on the ground that the actual transaction value is unclear, even if the transaction value is determined based on the standard market value, it shall be calculated by calculating the transfer income and calculating the excess tax, and the determination of the illegality of the taxation shall be made in addition, it shall be interpreted that the principle of substantial taxation as stipulated in Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is reasonable.

Despite the fact that evidence such as a sales contract, etc. after the period for filing a return under the above provision is not a material to determine the tax base of this case, it is reasonable for the court below to have determined the tax assessment of this case based on the standard market price of bonds without examining whether the evidence submitted in the court below is a evidence to verify the actual transaction price. Thus, it is reasonable to have erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the tax litigation described above, and to have failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, without determining other grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)