Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 170(4)2(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990); and Article 170(4)2(c) of the same Act

The purport of Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 170(4)2(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990) is presumed to fall under the speculative transaction once it falls under the category of speculative transaction listed in the above Enforcement Decree, but it is presumed that the transaction falls under the category of speculative transaction once it falls under the category of speculative transaction listed in the above Enforcement Decree, but if it is deemed that there is no speculative speculation as a normal economic act extremely high in light of the specific circumstances such as the acquisition, transfer circumstances, utilization status and retention period in the real estate transaction, it shall be excluded from the actual transaction price pursuant to the above Enforcement Decree after consultation with the Fair Taxation Committee, and the taxation principle based on the standard market price should be calculated based on the standard

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 170(4)2(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990);

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu24566 delivered on January 13, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), in calculating gains on transfer of real estate, acquisition and transfer value shall be based on the standard market price in principle, and in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be based on the actual market price. According to Article 170 (4) 2 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990), where real estate is transferred within one year after its acquisition, it shall be calculated based on the actual market price: Provided, That where it is deemed that there is no speculative nature in light of the process of acquisition and transfer of real estate and the actual use of the real estate, it may be excluded from the actual market price subject to the application of the Fair Taxation Committee under paragraph (9). The purport of each of the above provisions is to estimate that the real estate falls under the category of speculative transactions under the above Enforcement Decree, and to be excluded from the actual market price principle.

As in the theory of lawsuit, as the plaintiff purchased two parcels outside the land of this case from the non-party on January 29, 1976 and paid only the down payment and intermediate payment, the dispute over the above sale occurred, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the non-party becomes final and conclusive on October 27, 1989, and the decision was made in favor of the plaintiff on November 28, 1989, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on February 12, 1990, but most of the remaining amounts were transferred before the above repayment deposit was made, and the remaining amounts were settled. Since the time of acquisition of the land of this case was transferred on February 13, 1990 from the above repayment deposit date and the payment was settled, it cannot be viewed that there was no illegality in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the real transaction price of this case as calculated by the land transaction of this case, since it did not constitute a land transaction transaction under the land transaction regulation of this case.

2. As to the ground of appeal by the defendant performer

In comparison with the records of this case, we affirm the fact-finding by the court below that the plaintiff borrowed 105,00,000 won over two times from Nonparty 1 and paid two parcels of land of this case in substitution, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as pointed out in the above, and there is no error of law against the rules of evidence. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)