In calculating gains on transfer of assets, insofar as the acquisition value to be deducted from the transfer value falls under the conversion value under Article 115 (1) 1 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1294 of May 1, 1990), which is one of the standard market prices, and Article 56-5 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1832 of September 1, 1990), so long as the conversion value under Article 94 (5) of the same Enforcement Decree (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of August 1, 1989), the transfer value shall be deducted from the standard market price in a manner provided in the main sentence of Article 45 (1) 1 of the same Act, and only the amount equivalent to 7/100 of the tax base at the time of acquisition of the registration tax and improvement expenses shall be deducted from the necessary expenses (see the judgment No. 194. 194.2).20.

In the same purport, the court below is just to have rejected the remainder of the plaintiff's claim on the deduction of necessary expenses, except for the funeral expenses, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to necessary expenses.

In addition, Article 23 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198) was newly established pursuant to Article 23 (2) 2 of the Act, and Article 1 of the Addenda of the Act provides that the above amended Act shall enter into force on January 1, 1989, and Article 4 provides that the amended provisions of Article 23 of the same Act shall apply to the first transfer after the enforcement of the same Act, so in this case where the Plaintiff imposed capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant land on July 25, 198, the provisions of Article 23 (2) 2 of the Act on the Special Deduction for Long-Term Possession are not applicable, and the judgment below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the special deduction for long-term possession, such as theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the argument that the contract was rescinded due to the buyer's failure to receive part of the balance from the buyer, or the amount equivalent thereto cannot be included in the tax base, is a new argument in the trial, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. There is no reason for appeal.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)