Calculation of transfer margin of forests and fields so increased;

According to Articles 124-2(2) and 48(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9794 of Feb. 29, 1980), the acquisition value of property is the arm’s length price in the case of acquisition by purchase other than that in the case of acquisition by purchase. If it is difficult to confirm that the arm’s length price of the forest land, which is a gift property, has reached the present time, and it is unclear that the acquisition value is not clear, the transfer value shall not be calculated on the basis of the standard market

Article 48(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9699), Article 124 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9699)

The Dong National University Scholarship Association, a foundation

The director of Namsan Tax Office

Of the disposition of imposition of KRW 16,073,892 and the defense tax of KRW 2,755,524 against the plaintiff on September 15, 1981, the part that exceeds KRW 3,109,122 and the defense tax of KRW 532,92 shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes, and four others shall be borne by the defendant, and the remaining one by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 16,073,892 and the defense tax of KRW 2,755,524 against the Plaintiff on September 15, 1981 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The facts that the defendant issued a disposition to the plaintiff on September 15, 1981 against the plaintiff were without dispute between the parties, and the evidence Nos. 4-1 through 6 (written evidence No. 5), evidence No. 5-1, 2 (written statement No. 7), evidence No. 7-1, 2 (written statement No. 8-1, 6 (written statement No. 1, 2), the evidence No. 1, 2 (written statement of each decision No. 8 (written statement of each decision), 3 (written statement of research income), 4, 5 (Supplementary Statement), 6 (written certificate), 7 (written evidence No. 1, 7) of the same evidence No. 1, and 9 (written statement of taxation data), and the research was conducted with respect to non-party No. 1, 1958 as the basic property of the foundation established under the Civil Act, and the research was conducted with respect to non-party No. 1, 2, 3, and 196.

The plaintiff acquired six parcels of forest land as stated in the above list 10 to May 21, 197 1965 4. 20 . 5 . 10 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 1 . 5 . 6 . 1 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 1 . 6 . 5 . 1 . 4 . 6 . 1 . 5 . 6 . 1 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 1 . 5 . 1 . 6 . 1 . 4 . 6 . 1 . 4 . 5 - 1 . 1 . 4 . 5 - 1 6 . 1 . 4 . 5 - 1 . 6 - 1 9 . 3 . 4 , 196 . 6 1 . 7 . . 5 1 . 196 . . . . . 7 . .

In light of the above purpose of this case, the plaintiff corporation belongs to a corporation for the purpose of religious dissemination and other edification, and the above forest is leased income used for the purpose of the plaintiff corporation's own business and is used directly for the purpose of the plaintiff corporation's own business. The provisions of Article 59-3 of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of this case, are not subject to special surtax on income from the transfer of land in this case. Thus, the above disposition imposing transfer income tax on the above forest land as the object of special surtax is unlawful first in this point. Thus, the above disposition imposing transfer income tax on the above forest land as the object of special surtax is alleged to be unlawful first in this point. Thus, according to the provisions of Article 59-3 (1) 17 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200 of Dec. 28, 1979) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200 of Dec. 28, 1979). Thus, in this case, the plaintiff corporation's claim is not subject to special surtax.

Furthermore, in calculating the tax amount, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value with the actual market price and calculated the tax amount by using the transfer margin as the standard market price. This is so argued that it is unlawful. Thus, according to the provisions of Article 59-2 (1) and (3) of the Corporate Tax Act at the time, transfer margin, which is the tax base of special surtax, shall be calculated by deducting the acquisition value from the transfer price, and where the transfer price and the acquisition price are unclear, each standard market price shall be the transfer price and the acquisition price. According to Article 124-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the above standard market price is based on Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 48 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9794 of Feb. 29, 1980) which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 124-2 (2) and Article 124-6 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the above acquisition price of forest and land shall be included in the purport of No. 1 through 6 of the above transfer price.

Therefore, in light of the whole purport of the pleading in each of the above evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 6-1, and 9 of the above evidence Nos. 4-1, 584, and 400 of the transfer value of the above six parcels of forest land, the transfer value of the above six parcels of forest land shall be calculated based on the standard market price, and considering the whole purport of the pleading, the amount of the standard market price at the time of the above six parcels of forest land shall be calculated based on the above transfer value, which is 8,83,210 won after deducting the acquisition value of KRW 701,190 as above from the above transfer value, which is the amount of the standard market price at the time of the above six parcels of land, and the amount of the standard market price at the time of the above six parcels of forest land shall be 9,583,210,000 won after deducting the acquisition value of KRW 8,59-4,51(1), 41(3), and 9 of the defense tax law at the time shall be 30.

Therefore, the part of the above disposition by the defendant which exceeds the above recognized tax amount should be revoked illegally. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining part of the claim shall be dismissed unfairly. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Judge)