Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982); Article 170(3) and 170(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982); where data confirming actual transaction price is submitted after the lapse of the reporting period, with respect to the acquisition or transfer of assets through transactions with corporations at the time of enforcement of Article 23(4) and (4)1 of the former Income Tax

Article 23(4) and Article 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982); Article 170(3) and Article 170(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982); where one transaction is between a corporation and a corporation at the time of the enforcement of Article 170(3) and (4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, even if the taxpayer did not make a preliminary return on transfer margin or a final return on transfer margin, if both the acquisition price and transfer price are confirmed by evidentiary documents or on-site investigation, the transfer margin should be calculated based on the actual transaction price. In this context, even if the actual transaction price is confirmed by a confirmation document prepared and submitted by the transferor in the course of tax investigation after the expiration of the reporting period

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), Articles 170(3) and 170(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu1461 delivered on March 23, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982), and Article 170(3) and 170(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982), which is applicable at the time of the transfer of the land of this case, the transfer value and acquisition value, unlike the current Acts and subordinate statutes, shall be calculated as the actual transaction value in principle. In exceptional cases such as where a taxpayer fails to make a preliminary or final return on transfer income tax, the transfer price and acquisition value shall be calculated as the actual transaction value in accordance with the standard market price. Thus, even if a taxpayer fails to make a preliminary or final return on transfer gains with a corporation, if the actual transaction value is confirmed by both methods such as documentary evidence or on-site investigation and thus, it should be confirmed that the actual transaction value is legitimate in the process of a tax return.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is right and wrong and otherwise, if the transferor fails to make a report on the transfer income, there is no doubt of attacking the court below on the premise that the transfer income should be calculated only based on the standard market price.

In addition, in a case where there is no reason to suspect that the document prepared by the taxpayer was prepared falsely, even if the document is denied and the lawsuit is disputed later, it shall not be recognized as the actual transaction price based on such reason. In light of the records in this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the document prepared by the plaintiff was prepared in short of the meeting and pressure of the public officials belonging to the defendant and it cannot be said that there is an error against the rules of evidence in the disposition believed to be genuine, and therefore, it cannot be said that the court below erred by the decision that the defendant's tax disposition in this case, which confirmed the actual transaction price of the acquisition and transfer by the statement in this document, was lawful.

The decisions of the theory of lawsuit are different from those of this case, and it is not appropriate in this case. All the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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