The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff transferred the real estate of this case to the East Child Welfare Council, a social welfare foundation, and registered the name of transfer under the contract to receive tax benefits in the future as Kim Il-sung, the representative of the above corporation, and completed the registration based on donations in the future in the defendant's future, and determined that the tax disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the actual transferee of the above real estate is the above corporation. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 170(1) and (4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the transfer value and acquisition value determined on transfer income shall be based on the standard market price in principle. However, in a transaction with the State, a local government or other juristic person, where the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed, other than a transaction with a juristic person, if the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed, the transfer gains should be determined on the basis of the actual transaction price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1486, Aug. 8, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu767, Apr. 11, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu752, Feb. 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 2005Nu752, Feb. 24, 1987).

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)