In case of transferring inherited or donated property prior to the date of fictitious acquisition under Article 8 of the Addenda of the former Income Tax Act, the method of calculating transfer margin;

Article 10 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 199), Article 166 (1), (2) 3, and (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 198), which provides for the method of calculating the acquisition value of the assets donated by the transferor at the time of transfer by submitting evidential documents within the date of determination of transfer income tax base and tax amount, and thus, it is confirmed that only the actual transaction value at the time of transfer is confirmed. Article 166 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or Article 60 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 1998).

Article 100 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 1999); Article 166 (1) 2 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 1998); Article 166 (2) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969 of Dec. 31, 199); Article 8 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994); Articles 60 and 61 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1998)

Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8049 Delivered on August 22, 2003

Plaintiff (Completion of Attorney-at-Law)

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu15367 delivered on September 9, 2003

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 10(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6051, Dec. 28, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 166(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15969, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 16(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for the method of calculating the acquisition value of the assets donated by the transferor at the time of transfer and the head of tax office having jurisdiction over the actual transaction value at the time of transfer; Article 166(2)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15582, Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 166(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act which provides for the method of calculating the acquisition value of the assets at the time of transfer and acquisition. 260.

In the same purport, the court below held that the acquisition value of the building site of this case shall be the lower value of the actual market price at the time of transfer under Article 166 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the standard market price at the time of transfer under Article 166 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was converted into the actual market price at the time of transfer under Article 166 (2) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the actual market price at the time of donation under Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it cannot be viewed that the acquisition value of the building site of this case shall be calculated according to the above method under Article 167 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act regardless of the actual market price or the standard market price at the time of donation under Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that there is no need for the court below's determination that the provision of Article 166 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is invalid.

2. Although the Defendant filed an appeal, the Defendant did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal filed by the Defendant, and did not submit the grounds of appeal within the statutory period (the grounds of appeal filed by the Defendant was received on November 17, 2003, after the lapse of the statutory period). The Defendant’s appeal is inevitable to be dismissed.

3. 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 Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)