Requirements for the standard market price by the rate method determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to be the basis for calculation of transfer income tax

In order to be the basis for calculation of the transfer income tax, the standard market price by the method of the rate under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall exist in a specific area in the area designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the rate determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to be applied to such area

Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu813 delivered on March 13, 1984; 83Nu466 delivered on March 27, 1984

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu557 delivered on February 10, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 115 (3) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the value converted according to the method as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall be the standard market price at the time of acquisition of assets in a specific area under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of this Decree. Since the provisions newly established pursuant to the Presidential Decree No. 9698 of Dec. 31, 1979 were enforced from January 1, 1980, so the provisions of Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to the real estate which is transferred from January 20, 1979, which is determined by the court below, to the extent that there is no legal basis for calculating the transfer value of the real estate at the time of transfer under Article 23 (4) of the Income Tax Act, Article 45 (1) 1, Article 100 (1), and Article 170 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is obviously different from the standard market price at the time of the real transfer value determined by the transfer value.

The theory of lawsuit is a policy provision to restrain malicious speculation that may obstruct the economic stability and its growth. According to the interpretation of the court below, the above interpretation of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is nothing more than a clear stipulation that the purpose of the lawsuit is impossible to achieve, and Article 115 (3) of the above Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act has been enforced in the past. In addition, in a case where the interpretation of tax law or the practice of national tax administration is generally accepted for taxpayers, there is no evidence to find that there was a practice such as the theory of interpretation or practice, but even if there was such a practice, such practice does not go against the principle of tax system, such as the principle of no taxation without law, the principle of substantial taxation, or the principle of taxation based on the basis of the substance over form, even if there was such a practice, such a practice shall not be a violation of the principle of no taxation without law, and it shall not be employed since all of the theories and independent opinions have no reason to

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.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)