According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on May 26, 1988, the plaintiff acquired the right to acquire 32 square meters apartment units from the non-party 5th workplace housing association member of the Korea Exchange Bank, which was promoted on the 32th day of 192-2 of the Dongjak-gu Seoul, Seoul, Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter "right to sell this case"), but on February 11, 1989, the sale price of this case was 15,000,000 won with the price paid in 15,00,000 won, and the defendant did not have the right to purchase the real gains from the transfer of this case to the non-party 15,00,000,000 won with the real gains from the transfer of this case, and the defendant did not have the right to purchase the real proceeds from the transfer of this case under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and it did not have the right to purchase the real estate at first five,00,000 won with the standard market price of this case.

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), the transfer value or acquisition value of assets shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer or acquisition of such assets: Provided, That in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be based on the actual transaction value of such assets. Article 170(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) refers to cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 23(4) and the proviso of Article 45(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) provides for the right to acquire real estate at the time of transfer or acquisition as the right to acquire real estate at the time of sale under Article 23(4) and 45(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended No. 108. 278.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the calculation of transfer margin of the sale right of this case does not fall under the case of actual transaction price of assets as prescribed by the Presidential Decree is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of transfer income tax base, and there is a reason to point this out.

However, according to the records, in the disposition of this case, the defendant considers the actual transfer value of the sale right as 23,00,000 won, and the actual acquisition value as 8,00,000 won paid by the plaintiff is determined as gains from the actual transfer. The above 8,00,000 won recognized as the actual acquisition value in the transfer of this case is part of the sale price, and it cannot be viewed as the price of the sale right acquired by the plaintiff from the above inside stone, so it cannot be viewed as the actual acquisition value.

Therefore, it is unlawful that the Defendant imposed the instant gains on the transfer of the instant real estate at KRW 15,00,000 on the ground that it is unlawful, and otherwise, it is impossible to verify the actual acquisition value on the record (the original court has lawfully determined the fact that a sales contract had been concluded between the Plaintiff and the said Ansan with the purchase price of KRW 38,40,000 between the Plaintiff and the said Ansan, but no determination is made as to whether to pay the price has been made). In this case, the lower court did not urge the Defendant to submit data on the assessment of the standard market price, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated its duty of explanation

Therefore, the court below is just in its conclusion, and the above error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus the argument is eventually groundless.

Therefore, 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.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)