Park Jong-young (Attorney Park So-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Southern District Tax Office

may 9, 1983

Of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 107,756,100 for occasional transfer income tax of KRW 53,878,050 for the year 81 against the Plaintiff as of December 15, 1981, the part that exceeds KRW 14,740,086 for the defense tax of KRW 29,480,174 for capital gains tax shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The lawsuit cost shall be divided into three parts, and the remainder of the plaintiff shall be borne by the defendant.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 53,878,050, the defense tax of KRW 107,756,100, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff as of December 15, 1981, shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

No. 1 (Tax Payment Notice), No. 8 (No. 2-4; hereinafter the same shall apply) Eul No. 1-1-2 (No. 1-3)-4 (No. 1-5)-2-7 (No. 1-7)-2-9 (No. 1-7)-7)-2-9 (No. 9-7)--7)--7 (No. 9-7)-2-9-7)--7 (No. 97)-1-7)-1-7 for 70, No. 970-77)-2-9-7 (No. 97)-2-7)--9 of the above-mentioned amount of capital gains tax shall be applied to the plaintiff on December 15, 1981, and the amount calculated by deducting the amount of the above-mentioned amount of the capital gains tax from the amount of 90-70-7 (No. 970-20-7)-197)-20-7 of the above amount of the capital gains tax shall be sold at the time.

Since the Plaintiff donated the real estate in this case to the non-party profiter, the founder of the Incheon Industrial Special School, which was a business ethics at the time of the transfer of the real estate in this case, to facilitate the operation of the above school, the Plaintiff did not have any transfer income from the transfer of this case, the Defendant asserts that the transfer of this case is an illegal disposition in violation of the substance over form principle. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s transfer of this case’s real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the Korea Land Development Corporation, like the above recognition. Since the Plaintiff did not donate the real estate itself to the above founder, the imposition of transfer income tax on the transfer of the real estate in this case cannot be deemed to violate the substance over form principle even if the Plaintiff donated the sale price to the above founder

However, as seen earlier, the defendant shall calculate the amount of the transfer price based on the actual transaction price and the acquisition price based on the price increase rate pursuant to the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 82-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Since the method of calculating the transfer price and the acquisition price are not based on the income tax law that is the parent corporation, the transfer price and the acquisition price shall be calculated based on the market price standard, so the evidence 6-1 of subparagraph 6-2 of subparagraph 6-2 of subparagraph 6-3, 4-5 of the evidence 6-5 of subparagraph 6-6 (registration Tax Base), and the acquisition price based on the market price of the real estate in this case based on the price of the real estate in this case can be recognized as being gold 9,55,00 won and gold 109,200,000 won, and the transfer price based on the base price in this case shall be calculated based on the transfer income tax and the transfer income tax amount shall be calculated as shown 14084.7

Therefore, the part of the defendant's disposition of this case exceeding 29,480,174 won defense tax amounting to 14,740,086 won is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only within the extent of the above recognition. Thus, the plaintiff's remaining claim is justified, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89, Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the bearing of litigation costs.

may 30, 1983

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)