2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the contents of Paragraph 3 after the first instance court's decision to "no one shall take it over" as stated in Paragraph 2(c) of Article 2-3 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and as such, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parts used for the trial (whether or not the legal provisions of this case are unconstitutional);

A. Whether the principle of no taxation without representation and prohibition of comprehensive delegation of legislation is violated

(1) The need for delegation

Under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 735 of Jan. 14, 2005), the land standard market price, which is the basis for calculating the transfer income tax, was the officially assessed individual land price (Article 99(1)). Since there is no conceptual difference between the newly introduced land price system in 1990 and the land acquired before the first public notice of the officially assessed individual land price as of the real estate in this case, it was a transitional measure following the introduction of the officially assessed individual land price system, the provisions for calculating the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the land acquired before the public notice of the officially assessed individual land price, such as the instant

However, since the method of calculating the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of the land acquired prior to the announcement of the officially assessed individual land price can vary depending on the change in the real estate market and the advancement of related technology, it is necessary and reasonable to delegate such matters to the administrative legislation rather than the direct provision

Therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the legal provision of this case delegates the assessment of the above standard market price to the Presidential Decree.

(2) Identity, certainty, and predictability of the delegation;

The legal provision of this case delegates "matters necessary for the assessment of the standard market price at the time of acquisition of land acquired before the public notice of individual land price is given" to the Presidential Decree, and specifically and clearly sets forth the scope of delegation.

In addition, in light of the legislative intent as seen earlier, the content to be prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act according to delegation of the legal provision of this case is based on the officially assessed individual land price concerning the "calculated of the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the land acquired before the publicly announced individual land price is publicly announced", but it can be predicted that the first publicly announced individual land price and the price actually acquired the land will be adjusted by taking into account the difference in the land price at the time of actual acquisition. In fact, the formula of the Enforcement Decree of this case, which is delegated by the legal provision of this case, is the officially assessed individual land price X (the current standard market price at the time of acquisition ¡À the sum of the current standard market price at the time of acquisition and the immediately determined standard market price at the time of the immediately preceding acquisition on August 30, 1990).

(3) Sub-determination

As such, the legal provisions of this case specifically stipulate the subject of delegation concerning the calculation of the standard market price for calculating the tax base of capital gains tax, and can objectively predict the major principles that can be prescribed in subordinate laws, so it does not violate the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation.

B. Whether the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation is violated

Retroactive legislation is divided into so-called ‘indeption legislation' and ‘indeption-based legislation' according to whether the new law has already been terminated or it has started in the past but has not yet been completed and has been in progress. While the former is a principle not to be constitutionally permitted, the latter, in principle, is allowed, but in the process of a bridge between the reason for public interest and the request for protection of trust, the point of view of protection of trust in the process of a bridge between the reason for public interest and the request for protection of trust will be restricted to

The legal provision of this case is a provision newly established by the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995), which was enforced on Jan. 1, 1996, and applied from the first transfer after its enforcement (Article 8 of the Addenda). This is not applicable to the transfer of land that had already been transferred before its enforcement and for which the taxation requirements have already been completed, but is applied to the land that was transferred after its enforcement. Thus, it does not constitute a genuine legislation.

Therefore, the legal provisions of this case only bring about the issue of protecting trust to landowners who trusted the existence of the existing legal status, and do not violate the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation.

C. Whether it violates the principle of trust protection

(1) The plaintiff's trust interest

The plaintiff can only assert the expectation or trust that "the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the real estate of this case, that is, the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of the real estate of this case, has been continuously implemented until the transfer of the real estate of this case, and the acquisition price and transfer price should be based on the standard market price at the time of taxation.

However, the method of calculating the capital gains tax base was changed from 1973 to 1979 when the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate from 1973 to 1979 to apply the principle of the actual transaction price. From 1983 to 1983, the standard market price was changed from the standard market price of land under the former Local Tax Act to the officially assessed individual land price under the Local Tax Act, and was returned to the actual transaction price again since 2007.

Considering the frequent reorganization of the transfer income tax system as above, the Plaintiff’s expectation for the continuation of the standard market price system is very uncertain and temporary. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s trust that the taxation standard market price system will continue without changing its standard market price is difficult to view that there is a value or need to be specially protected under the Constitution.

(2) The importance of public interest

The method of calculating the standard market price of taxation under the Local Tax Act is a method of calculating the price of a lot of land across the country in line with the limited class of land across the country, and therefore it could not be reflected properly and reasonably in the standard market price of the land. Furthermore, as the price increases rapidly, the gap between the actual market price and the standard market price of taxation is extreme, the legislators introduced the officially assessed individual land price system in order to calculate the new standard market price close to the actual market price.

On the other hand, as the individual land price system was introduced in 190 as well as the transfer income tax, the individual land price was adopted as a standard market price in substitution for the amount of taxation standard in the tax base under the Local Tax Act, and accordingly, the standard amount of taxation standard has been abolished in around 1995. According to the introduction of the individual land price system, the legislators abolished the existing standard amount of taxation standard, but made a transitional provision like the provisions of this case to protect the trust of those like the plaintiff, so that their trust can be minimized.

(3) Sub-determination

In light of the fact that the amendment of the Income Tax Act related to the calculation of the tax base of capital gains tax is frequent, the Plaintiff’s legal status also lacks trust interest to protect the Plaintiff’s legal status, the public interest of establishing a new standard market price system that is more appropriate than the principle of substantial taxation, and the legal provision of this case is a transitional provision to minimize the Plaintiff’s infringement of trust, it cannot be deemed that the legal provision of this case violates the principle of trust protection.

D. Whether the principle of tax equality is violated

The officially assessed individual land price system is a system introduced through the enactment of the Act on the Public Notice of Land Price and the Evaluation of Land, etc. in 1989, and accordingly, the officially assessed individual land price was first announced on August 30, 1990. Thus, in principle, it is impossible for the Plaintiff, like the Plaintiff, to apply the officially assessed individual land price to a person who acquired land before August 30, 1990. In other words, while adopting the officially assessed individual land price as the standard market price, the individual land price cannot be applied to a person who acquired land before August 30, 1990, such as the Plaintiff, is not due to the statutory provisions of the instant case, but it was first announced on August 30,

As above, the legal provision of this case does not stipulate any discrimination between the person who acquired the land before August 30, 1990 and the person who acquired the land thereafter, and thus, does not violate the principle of tax equality.

E. Therefore, the legal provisions of this case do not violate the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2007HunBa74, Sept. 25, 2008). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion disputing this point is not acceptable.

3. The addition;

Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1294, May 1, 1990) provides that the standard market price at the time of acquisition of land which was acquired before this Decree enters into force shall be the price converted by the formula of the officially assessed individual land price X (the standard market price at the time of acquisition ± the standard market price at the time of acquisition ± the standard market price at the time of notification of the officially assessed individual land price as at January 1, 1990) as of January 1, 199. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the above provision shall be determined by the previous officially assessed individual land price different from the standard market price at September 1, 1990, which is to be determined by the previous officially assessed individual land price at the time of acquisition, and it is reasonable in the method of calculating the officially assessed individual land price at the time of acquisition, which is to be calculated retroactively by the publicly notified individual land price at the time of acquisition, and that the above provision shall not be deemed as null and void by the previous formula of 190.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2006Gudan2247, 196)]

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 4, 1973, the Plaintiff acquired the pertinent land at 0,65 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) before 0,000,000 2,000 5,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 1,000 ,000 , 1,312 , 0,631 , 357 ,00 , 93 ,00 ,000 ,00 93,000 ,00 9,00 9,00 1,000,000 5,00 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,05,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,05,000,00.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 3, 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) unconstitutionality of Article 99 (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7335 of January 14, 2005)

"위 구 소득세법 제99조 제3항 중지가공시및토지등의평가에관한법률에 의하여 개별공시지가가 고시되기 전에 취득한 토지의 취득 당시의 기준시가‥‥등 기준시가의 산정에 관하여 필요한 사항은 대통령령으로 정한다'라고 규정한 부분(이하이 사건 법률조항'이라 한다)은 개별공시지가가 고시되기 전에 취득한 토지의 취득 당시 기준시가 산정에 관한 구체적인 기준과 범위를 정함이 없이 막연히 위 기준시가 산정에 관하여 필요한 사항은 대통령령으로 정한다고만 규정함으로써 포괄위임금지의 원칙을 정한 헌법 제75조에 위배되고, 개별공시지가 시행 전에 취득한 토지의 취득가액 산정에 있어서의 납세자의 예측가능성과 법적 안정성을 침해하고 있으므로 조세법률주의에도 위배되며, 또한 개별공시지가 시행 전에 취득한 토지의 취득 당시 기준시가를 사후에 임의로 정하고 나아가 개별공시지가의 최초 발효일인 1990. 1. 1.을 전후하며 토지를 취득한 국민들간에 차별을 두는 것인 만큼, 소급입법에 의한 재산권박탈을 금지한 헌법 제13조 제2항과 평등의 원칙에도 위배된다.",(2) 구 소득세법 시행령(2005. 2. 19. 대통령령 제18705호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 164 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of this case") provides for a arbitrary formula to arbitrarily calculate the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the land acquired prior to the enforcement of the officially assessed individual land price based on blank delegation of the provisions of this case, thereby impairing taxpayers' predictability, property rights and legal stability. Thus, it violates the principle of no taxation without the law as it imposes unfavorable taxation on taxpayers under revised Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, it violates the principle of no retroactive legislation under the Constitution and the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it also violates the principle of no taxation without the law of 100, 190, 190, 190, 300, 100, 100, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000).

(3) Ultimately, the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of land, which was acquired prior to the public notice of the officially assessed individual land price, shall be deemed to have been acquired on January 1, 1990 when the officially assessed individual land price first came into effect, and it shall be computed at that time by the land price. Such method of calculation shall be deemed to conform to the spirit of the Constitution and the purport of Article 10(1) of the former Income Tax Act, Articles 14(2) and 18(

(4) Therefore, since the instant legal provisions and the instant enforcement decree provisions are invalid as unconstitutional or unlawful provisions, the instant disposition based thereon must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the legal provisions of this case are unconstitutional

(A) Whether the principle of no taxation without law and prohibition of comprehensive delegation is violated

"헌법 제38조 및 제59조에 규정된 조세법률주의는 납세의무의 중요한 사항 내지 본질적 내용이라고 여겨지는 과세요건인 납세의무자, 과세물건, 과세표준 및 세율 뿐 아니라 조세의 부과·징수절차까지 모두 법률로써 가능한 한 명확하게 규정할 것을 요구하는 바, 기준시가는 양도소득세의 과세표준 산정에 있어서 그에 관한 규정이 전혀 없으면 앙도소득세 납세의무의 존부 및 범위를 결정하거나 그 개략적인 내용을 예측하는 것이 불가능하다는 점에서 양도소득세 과세표준의 중요한 사항인 동시에 양도소득세 납세의무 그 자체의 중요한 사항이라고 보아야 할 것이므로 기준시가는 법률로써 가능한 한 구체적이고도 명확하게 규정되어야 한다. 그러나, 사회현상의 복잡다기화와 국회의 전문적·기술적 능력의 한계 및 시간적 적응능력의 한계로 인하여 조세부과에 관련된 모든 법규를 예외 없이 형식적 의미의 법률로써 규정한다는 것은 사실상 불가능할 뿐만 아니라 실제에 적합하지도 아니하기 때문에, 경제현실의 변화나 전문적 기술의 발달에 즉시 대응하여야 할 필요 등 부득이한 사정이 있는 경우에는 법률로 규정하여야 할 사항에 관하여 형식적 법률보다 더 탄력성이 있는 행정입법에 위임함이 허용된다고 할 것이다. 그리고 헌법 제75조에서는대통령은 법률에서 구체적으로 범위를 정하여 위임받은 사항‥‥에 관하여 대통령령을 발할 수 있다'고 규정함으로써 이와 같은 위임입법의 근거를 마련함과 동시에 위임은 구체적·개별적으로 행해질 것을 요구하고 있는데, 여기서구체적으로 범위 정하여'라고 함은 법률에 대통령령 등 하위법규에 규정될 내용 및 범위의 기본사항이 가능한 한 구체적이고도 명확하게 규정되어 있어서 누구라도 당해 법률 그 자체로부터 대통령령 등에 규정될 내용의 대강을 예측할수 있어야 함을 의미한다고 할 것이고, 그 예측가능성의 유무는 당해 특정 조항 하나만을 가지고 판단할 것은 아니고 관련 법조항 전체를 유기적·체계적으로 종합, 판단하여야 하며 각 대상법률의 성질에 따라 구체적·개별적으로 검토하여야 한다.", "이 사건 법률조항은'···지가공시및토지등의평가에관한법률에 의하여 개별공시지가가 고시되기 전에 취득한 토지의 취득 당시의 기준시가‥‥등 기준시가의 산정에 관하여 필요한 사항은 대통령령으로 정한다'라고만 규정하고 있으나, 이 사건 부동산의 앙도 당시 시행되고 있던 구 소득세법(2003. 12. 30. 법률 제7006호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제99조 제1항, 제2항은 기준시가를 정함에 있어서 자산을 토지(제1항 제1호 가목), 건물(같은 호 나목), 건물에 부수되는 토지를 공유로 하고 건물을 구분 소유하는 공동주택(같은 호 다목), 제94조 제1항 제2호 내지 제4호의 자산(제1항 제2호 내지 제7호)으로 분류한 다음, 지가공시및토지등의평가에관한법률 등에서 이미 그 개념, 산정방식 및 결정절차 등이 정하여져 있는 제도에 의하여 기준시가를 산정하도록 하거나(제1항 제1호 가목 본문, 나목, 다목 및 제1항 제3호, 제4호의 경우), 산정방식의 대강이나 기준을 미리 정해둔 다음 나머지 구체적 세부적인 내용만을 대통령령에서 정하도록 위임하고 있다(제1항 제1호 가목 단서 및 제1항 제2호, 제5호, 제6호, 제7호의 경우).",따라서 이 사건 법률조항은 위 구 소득세법 제99조 제1항, 제2항에서 직접 규정한 사항을 제외한 나머지 기준시가에 관한 사항에 대하여만 대통령령에 위임하고 있는 것으로서, 비록 이 사건 법률조항 자체에서 명시적으로 위 기준시가 산정방식의 기준을 미리 정하고 있지 아니하더라도 위 구 소득세법 제99조 제1항, 제2항에서 위와 같이 자산별로 기준시가의 원칙적인 산정기준이나 방법을 규정하고 있는 이상, 그 대통령령에서 정할 기준시가 산정방식의 대강을 충분히 예측할 수 있다고 봄이 상당하다.

Thus, the legal provision of this case does not violate Article 75 of the Constitution which provides for the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation by delegating the matter concerning the calculation of the standard market price to the Presidential Decree, or does not violate Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution which provides the principle of no taxation without law (see Constitutional Court Order 98HunBa42 delivered on June 24, 199).

(B) Whether the prohibition of retroactive legislation and the principle of equality are violated

Article 13(2) of the Constitution prohibiting the deprivation of property rights under the Retroactive Act provides that “The legal provision of this case is not intended to impose capital gains tax on the transfer of land, the taxation requirement of which has already been transferred before its enforcement, but rather to impose capital gains tax on the transfer of land that has already been completed after its enforcement. If the land is acquired before its enforcement, the standard market price at the time of its acquisition shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree.” Thus, the legal provision of this case shall not violate Article 13(2) of the Constitution that prohibits the deprivation of property rights under the Retroactive Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu14308, Aug. 11, 1995; 202Hun-Ba9, Jul. 15, 2004; 2002Hun-Ba63, etc.). Thus, the legislative purport of imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of the land after its enforcement cannot be seen as violating the principle of equality and equality of the officially assessed individual land price, and thus it cannot be justified.

(2) Whether the enforcement decree of the instant case is unconstitutional or unlawful

(A) Whether the principle of no taxation without law is violated

"이 사건 시행령조항은 1990. 8 30. 개별공시지가(공시기준일 1990. 1. 1.)가 최초로 고시되기 전에 취득한 토지의 취득 당시 기준시가를1990. 1. 1.을 기준으로 한 개별공시지가 ☓ (취득 당시의 시가표준액 / 1990. 8. 30. 현재의 시가표준액과 그 직전에 결정된 시가표준액의 합계액을 2로 나누어 계산한 가액)'의 산식에 의하여 계산하도록 규정하고 있는바, 이는 이 사건 법률조항의 위임에 근거한 것으로서, 앞서 본 바와 같이 모법인 이 사건 법률조항에서 이 사건 시행령조항이 규정할 내용의 대강을 예측할 수 있고, 그 규정 내용 또한 토지의 기준시가에 관하여 원칙적인 산정기준을 정한 위 구 소득세법 제99조 제1항 제1호 가목의 취지를 관철하여 최초 고시된 공시기준일 1990. 1. 1.의 개별공시지가를 기준으로 하면서도, 개별공시지가 고시 이전, 즉 취득 당시부터 위 최초 개별공시지가 고시 무렵까지의 지가 변동분을 반영하기 위하여 위 시점간의 지방세법상 시가표준액 대비비율을 위 1990. 1. 1. 기준의 최초 개별공시지가에 곱하는 방식으로 위 취득 당시의 기준시가를 산정하게 한 것인 만큼, 모법의 위임목적과 범위에 부합하고 그 한도내에서 합리성도 인정된다고 보이므로, 이 사건 시행령조항이 개별공시지가 시행 전에 취득한 토지의 취득 당시 기준시가를 자의적인 산식에 의하여 산출하도록 함으로써 납세자의 예측가능성과 재산권 및 법적 안정성을 침해하였다고 볼 수 없다 할 것이어서, 조세법률주의에 위반된다고 할 수 없다.",(나) 소급입법금지 및 평등의 원칙 등 위반 여부

As to the determination of the unconstitutionality of the provision of this case, the issue of whether transferred assets meet the taxation requirements is determined on the basis of the time of transfer. As such, other provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case also constitute the legislation of the so-called 'non-so-called 'non-deficial effect' under the retroactive legislation of Article 13(2) of the Constitution or the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation under Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall not be violated. In addition, the provision of this case and the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case, as above, supplement the legislative inconsistency and deficiencies of Article 9(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act and ultimately supplement the legislative inconsistency and deficiencies of Article 99(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act, which ultimately are acquired before and after the public notice of the unconstitutionality of taxation, are to realize the tax justice and comply with the principle of equality of taxation by imposing taxes in accordance with the substance of the transfer of the land. Thus, the standard market price at the time of the above public notice of individual land price cannot be established within 190.

(C) Whether Article 100(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) violates the law, etc.

Article 100 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006), where the transfer value is calculated based on the standard market price, the acquisition value is also determined based on the standard market price, and where the transfer value is determined based on the officially assessed individual land price, the acquisition value does not be determined based on the publicly assessed individual land price. Furthermore, the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act provides that, in order to supplement Article 99 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act, where the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the land acquired prior to the public notice of the publicly notified individual land price is determined based on the delegation of the legal provision of this case, the first publicly notified individual land price cannot be determined based on the standard market price prior to the public notice of the publicly notified individual land price (amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act No. 1000 (1) of the same case’s first publicly notified individual land price prior to the public notice of this case’s 190).

(3) Ultimately, the instant disposition that calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate pursuant to the instant legal provision and the instant Enforcement Decree provision following its delegation is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case cannot be accepted, and it is dismissed.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

/ Income Tax Act

Article 96 (Value of Angrasium (Amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005)

(1) The transfer value of assets referred to in Article 94 (1) 1 and 2 shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer of the assets concerned.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income [before Amendment by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005]

(1) In calculating gains on transfer of a resident, necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be as follows:

1. Acquisition value:

(a) In case of assets under Article 94 (1) 1 and 2, the short sentence of the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of such assets;

Article 99 (Computation of Standard Market Price)

(1) The standard market price pursuant to the main sentence of Article 96 (1), the main sentence of Article 97 (1) 1 (a), Articles 100 and 114 (5) shall be as follows:

1. Land or buildings under the provisions of Article 94 (1) 1:

(a) Land;

The individual officially assessed land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the “individual assessed land price”): Provided, That the price of land for which no officially assessed individual land price exists, shall be the amount assessed by a method as determined by the Presidential Decree, taking into consideration the officially assessed individual land price of neighboring similar lands, and the price which is assessed by

(b) Buildings:

The value calculated and publicly announced by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at least once a year in consideration of the new construction price, structure, use, location, year of new construction of buildings (excluding buildings falling under item (c))

(c) The value of land and buildings calculated and publicly announced by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at least once a year in consideration of the type, size, transaction status, etc. of buildings for multi-unit houses (including land annexed thereto) located in an area designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as multi-unit houses which share the land attached to the building and partitioned

2. Rights on real estates as prescribed in Article 94 (1) 2:

(a) For rights to acquire real estates:

The value appraised by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the type, scale, transaction status, etc. of transferred assets;

(b) Superficies, chonsegwon, and registered real estate leases;

Value assessed by such method as prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the remaining period, nature, content, transaction situation, etc. of rights;

3. Stocks, etc. under Article 94 (1) 3 (a):

Value evaluated by mutatis mutandis applying Article 63 (1) 1 (a) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. For this purpose, "two months before or after the evaluation base date, respectively" in the same item shall be deemed "one month before the transfer date or the acquisition date";

4. Stocks, etc. prescribed by the Presidential Decree among those under Article 94 (1) 3 (b):

Value evaluated by mutatis mutandis applying Article 63 (1) 1 (b) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. For this purpose, "two months before or after the evaluation base date, respectively" in the same item applicable mutatis mutandis under the same item shall be construed as "one month before the transfer date or the acquisition date";

5. Stocks, etc. not falling under subparagraph 4 among those under Article 94 (1) 3 (b), and stocks, etc. under Article 94 (1) 3 (c):

Value evaluated by mutatis mutandis applying Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. The time of evaluation and the amount assessed shall be as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, but if the standard market price at the time of acquisition is not verifiable due to the loss, etc. in part, the face value shall be

6. Preemptive rights under Article 94 (1) 3;

The value appraised by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the type, scale, transaction status, etc. of transferred assets;

7. Miscellaneous assets under Article 94 (1) 4:

The value appraised by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the type, scale, transaction status, etc. of transferred assets;

(2) "Methods of multiple rates" in the proviso to paragraph (1) 1 (a) means crime prevention assessed by the amount calculated by multiplying the officially assessed individual land price as at the time of transfer or acquisition by the multiple rates prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(3) Where the standard market price at the time of transfer and that at the time of its acquisition are identical, the standard market price at the time of transfer, and the standard market price at the time of acquisition under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act prior to a public notice of the publicly notified individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and the standard market price at the time of its acquisition, and other necessary matters concerning the assessment of the standard market price, including that at the time of its acquisition, shall

Article 100 (Calculation of Gains from Transfer)

(1) In the calculation of gains on transfer, the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value (including the value provided for in Article 96 (3) and the amount of transaction example or appraised value, etc. in cases where the amount of transaction example or appraised value is applied pursuant to Article 114 (5)), and the acquisition value shall also be based on the actual transaction value (including the amount provided for in Article 97 (7) and the amount provided for in Article 114 (5) in cases where the amount of transaction example, appraised, converted value, etc. is applied), and when the transfer value is based on the standard market value, the acquisition value

The amended Act of the Income Tax Act (Law No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994)

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income) Any transfer income shall be the following incomes generated in the current year:

1. Income accruing from transferring buildings or land;

Any asset as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 94 of the Addenda (Legal Fiction of Time of Acquisition of Transferred Assets) which is acquired before December 31, 1984, shall be considered to have been acquired on January 1, 1985, and any asset as provided in subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the same Article, which is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall be considered to have been acquired on the date as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. < Amended by Act No. 5031, Dec. 29, 1995>

【Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Article 164 (Assessment of Standard Market Price of Land and Building before Amendment by Presidential Decree No. 18705 of Feb. 19, 2005)

(4) The standard market price at the time of the acquisition of land, which was acquired before a publicly announced individual land price was publicly announced on August 30, 1990 under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, shall be the price calculated by the following formula. In this case, the standard market price in the following formula means the standard market price

1990년 1월 1일을 기준으로 한 개별공시지가 ☓ (취득당시의 시가표준액 / 1990년 8월 30일 현재의 시가표준액과 그 직전에 결정된 시가표준액의 합계액을 2로 나누어 계산한 가액)