[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1992.1.1.(911),149]
Whether Article 115(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of August 1, 1989 includes cases where no specific area system itself exists at the time of acquisition (affirmative)
Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) provides that "a certain area is not a specific area at the time of acquisition and there is no rate of multiple rates" includes not only a specific area but also a specific area where there is no rate of multiple rates because it is not designated as a specific area at the time of acquisition but also a specific area where there is no rate of multiple rates
Articles 23 and 45 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff
The head of Yangcheon Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu16414 delivered on June 12, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
(1) On August 1, 1988, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on September 7, 1962 and transferred it to 2, the non-party, etc., and made the preliminary return of transfer marginal profit on September 22, 198, the court below rejected the plaintiff's transfer income tax amount under Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12154 of May 8, 1987, which was amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of August 1, 1989; hereinafter the Act, the Enforcement Decree, the Enforcement Decree, and the Enforcement Rule of the Act) on the ground that the transfer of the land of this case was not a specific area or a specific area at the time of transfer, and the transfer of the land of this case was not in violation of Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act until the date of acquisition under Article 16 of the Addenda of the Income Tax Act.
(2) Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the transfer price of the land in this case shall be the standard market price by the rate method under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the acquisition price shall be the conversion price under Article 56-5 (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, since there is no difference between the specific area and the general area at the time of acquisition.
The appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)