The method of calculating gains on transfer where the ratio is not determined because the transferred assets are not located in the specific area at the time of acquisition.

Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154, May 8, 1987) means that a transferred asset belongs to a specific area at the time of its acquisition, but there is no ratio of the specific area at the time of its acquisition: Provided, That in a case where there is no provision to apply, and where there is no ratio of the ratio because it is not located in a specific area at the time of its acquisition, the standard market price by the above ratio method or conversion method cannot be applied, and both the transfer value and the acquisition value

Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154 of May 8, 1987)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Nu576 Decided January 20, 1987 86Nu654 Decided February 10, 1987

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Head of Gangnam District Tax Office and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1189 delivered on January 28, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the plaintiffs were voluntarily paid on June 30, 1984, the profits accruing from the transfer of the land in this case and the profits accruing from the voluntary payment thereof. The defendant Gangnam-gu Tax Office decided to impose each transfer income tax on plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, and 7 on Nov. 11, 1985 and the plaintiff 5 and 6 on Sep. 16, 1985, and the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 were recognized by the Board of Audit and Inspection as to the imposition of the transfer income tax in this case on Nov. 20, 1985. Thus, the plaintiffs' above request for review was made within each exclusion period, and it cannot be accepted as legitimate, and the plaintiff 5, 3, 4, and 7's assertion of omission or omission of judgment was made from an independent opinion.

2. Article 115(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154 of May 8, 1987), which does not include the ratio of the specific area at the time of acquisition, means that the transferred asset is located in a specific area at the time of its acquisition, but it does not include the ratio. However, if the transferred asset is not located in a specific area at the time of its acquisition and there is no fixed ratio of the ratio, it does not constitute it. In such a case, the standard market price by the ratio method or conversion method is not applicable, and both the transfer value and the acquisition value should be calculated by the standard market price under the Local Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu576 of Jan. 20, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu654 of Feb. 10, 1987).

In this regard, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that the disposition of this case, which calculated transfer margin based on the calculation of the transfer margin based on the calculation of the transfer value of the land of this case by the method of the multiple factor, is unlawful, and the transfer value and acquisition value of the land of this case are calculated based on the calculation of the calculation of transfer margin according to the method as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, is calculated as the assets in a specific area, which are not publicly announced as a specific area at the time of its acquisition, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principle, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 85Nu722 delivered on October 14, 1986 ruled that the party member was discarded by the 86Nu576 delivered on January 20, 1987, and the Supreme Court Decision 83Nu488 delivered on June 26, 1984 ruled that even if the transferred real estate is not located in a specific area at the time of its acquisition, it is located in a specific area at the time of its transfer and only if the rate is determined, the acquisition value may be calculated by applying Article 115(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below does not conflict with the above Supreme Court Decision.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)