The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 13(1)3 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an enterpriser shall receive an unreasonably lower price than the market price that is deemed to unfairly reduce the tax burden in a transaction with a person with a special relationship with him/her; it means that an enterpriser receives a significantly lower price than the market price that is deemed to unfairly reduce the tax burden in a transaction with a person with a special relationship with him/her; ultimately, it cannot be objectively determined on the basis of normal transaction that does not lose the equity in tax burden depending on a specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu514, Dec. 10, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu532, Mar. 10, 197).

According to the court below's lawful determination, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's tax disposition of this case by the defendant who imposed the value-added tax on the basis of the above formula is erroneous in the above purport, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen in the above, since it cannot be said that the deposit price, such as the time when the plaintiff leased and received the land of this case owned by the non-party general partnership company, to the non-party general who had special relation with the non-party special relation, was significantly lower than the market price, solely on the ground that the lease price was lower than the market price calculated by the tax base formula of land services provided without compensation to the related party established by the National Tax Service. Thus, the court below's decision that denied

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 Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)