The former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154, May 8, 1987) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154, Jan. 8, 1987) shall apply to the assessment of transfer margin of transfer of land not falling under a specific area at the

The fact that an administrative disposition is contrary to the Supreme Court's precedent cannot be deemed null and void solely on the basis that the defect falls under a specific area as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at the time of transfer, and the transfer margin of land not falling under a specific area shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price based on the amount of taxation under the Local Tax Act, and the transfer value shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price based on the rate under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the transfer value shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price based on the rate under Article 115 (3) of the same Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154 of May 8, 197), and the acquisition value shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price based on the conversion value under Article 115 (3) of the same Decree, which is an administrative disposition

Articles 23 and 45 of the Income Tax Act; Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154 of May 8, 1987)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Song-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu2846 delivered on October 17, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The facts that administrative disposition is contrary to the Supreme Court precedents alone cannot be deemed null and void because its defect is significant and obvious. In this regard, the court below's decision that the defendant's acquisition price of the land of this case constitutes a specific area as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at the time of transfer on March 19, 1985, but does not correspond to a specific area, so all the transfer price and acquisition price should be calculated based on the standard market price based on the standard market price under the Local Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu727, Nov. 26, 1985; 87Nu328, Jul. 21, 1987). Thus, the transfer price is calculated based on the ratio method under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act, and the acquisition price is calculated based on the standard market price under Article 115 (3) of the same Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154, May 8, 1987).

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won