In order to transfer land, whether a false report on the estimated amount of transfer in the preliminary return of the transaction contract for land, etc. within a reported zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory constitutes a case where “the transfer of real estate violates the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the transfer of real estate” under Article 170(4)2(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190) (affirmative)

In order to transfer land, making a false report on the estimated transfer price of land, etc. within a reported zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is an act that violates Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 21-7 (1) and Article 33 subparagraph 4 of the same Act, and this constitutes an act that violates the laws and subordinate statutes, such as Article 170 (4) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190) which provides for cases where a tax can be levied based on the actual transaction price.

Article 23(4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 170(4)2(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989; Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 199)

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

[Judgment of the court below]

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu9154 delivered on March 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Examining the evidence presented by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that the plaintiff acquired 470 square meters of the site of Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) and its ground buildings in this case on February 24, 1989, but reported land transaction contract to the competent authority on March 26, 1990 in order to transfer them on March 26, 190, reported falsely the estimated contract amount by lowering the estimated contract amount compared to the actual market price, is acceptable, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

In order to transfer land, the preliminary return of the land transaction contract within the reported zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is a violation of the laws and subordinate statutes, such as Article 21-7 (1) and Article 33 subparagraph 4 of the same Act, which provides cases where the amount of transfer can be taxed based on the actual transaction price (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Dec. 31, 190, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990). In addition, since there are no materials that can be recognized that the land transaction in this case has no speculation in light of the record, it is justified at the time of the original adjudication that there is no illegality in calculating the amount of tax based on the actual transaction price of the land transaction in this case.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)