The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the public credit finance company of the non-party limited partnership company, and sold it to the non-party 1 thereafter, and did not make a final return on the profits accruing from the transfer of the property and the final return on the tax base pursuant to the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the defendant calculated the gains accruing from the transfer pursuant to the standard market price by applying the provisions of Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3175, Dec. 28, 1979), and recognized the fact that the transfer income tax of this case was imposed on the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 before the remand, and concluded that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it objectively and objectively, the actual market price at the time of the acquisition or transfer of the real estate of this case is insufficient to confirm it, and pursuant to Article 170(3) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9793, Feb. 29, 2980) or 400, the transfer price shall be determined.

However, this shall not apply to cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs. "Where the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed by transaction with the State, a local government, or other corporation". "Where a resident who received a notice of notice of decision on transfer of assets under subparagraph 2 submits evidential documents which can be confirmed at the time of transfer or acquisition". Thus, "where the actual transaction price is confirmed under subparagraph 1 of the proviso of paragraph (3)" means not only the case where both of the acquisition and transfer are traded with a corporation, etc., but also the case where only one of the acquisition and transfer is confirmed as the transaction price with a corporation, etc., but also the other transaction price is confirmed as the actual transaction price under subparagraph 2 of the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, the transfer margin is determined as the actual transaction price under the main sentence of Article 170 (3) of the above Enforcement Decree, and thus, it is reasonable to determine the transfer margin, so if the above facts and the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition cannot be determined by the plaintiff's opinion objectively under the proviso of Article 170 (3).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)