(a) A case where a tax base determination report attached with a copy of contract under Article 45 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not submitted to the tax authority while transferring the ownership for security

(b) Actual transaction price and standard market price in calculating transfer income;

A. If the secured party fails to submit the final return on tax base attached with a copy of contract under Article 45(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act while completing the registration of transfer for the purpose of security, and such transfer is subject to the transfer income tax if it is appropriated for the repayment of secured claim by transferring, etc. for the exercise of security right.

(b) In calculating the amount of capital gains for the imposition of capital gains tax, it shall be based on the actual transaction price of the same acquisition value and transfer value as or in the same standard market price.

Article 45 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 23 (5) of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu187 Decided September 11, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 80Nu95 Decided July 8, 1980

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of North Korean Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu569 delivered on November 26, 1980

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

In the event that the transfer of ownership is registered for the purpose of collateral for the above property subject to transfer income tax at the time of enforcement of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 2703, Dec. 24, 197), the Plaintiff’s actual transfer of ownership is not submitted to the tax authorities with a copy of the contract under Article 45(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Ordinance No. 7458, Dec. 31, 197), and if the secured party disposes of the assets secured by the secured party for the purpose of realizing the secured obligation and then appropriated the secured obligation, the transfer of the assets is deemed the transfer subject to the imposition of the transfer income tax (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu187, Sept. 11, 197). The Plaintiff’s actual transfer of ownership and the transfer of ownership under Article 23(5) of the said Act shall be deemed to have been registered for the purpose of calculating the acquisition value of the secured property at the time of transfer under the name of Nonparty 1’s actual transfer of ownership.70

In light of the above, we affirm the above fact-finding of the court below after reviewing the evidence at the time of the decision of the court below, and it cannot be concluded that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the rules of evidence in the process of its fact-finding, and the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of taxation such as Article 23 (5) of the Income Tax Act or Article 16 of the Addenda of the same

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

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)