(a) Method of calculating transfer margin where no rate is applicable at the time of acquisition of real estate in a specific area;

B. Whether the method of determining the standard market price applicable in a specific area has been delegated to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (negative)

A. In order to calculate the transfer and acquisition value by applying the standard market price under Articles 115(1)1(a) and 115(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978), the standard market price by the above rate shall not be applied to real estate located in a specific 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 at the time of its acquisition as well as at the time of its acquisition. Thus, even if the real estate located in a specific area has no applicable rate at the time of its acquisition, the standard market price by the above rate

B. In full view of the purport of Articles 115(1)1 and 115(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978), the standard market price applicable to a specific area shall be the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall only delegate to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service the corresponding rate only to determine the standard market price,

(a)Article 23(4) and Article 60 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978); Article 115(1)1(a) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978);

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu63 delivered on May 29, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 84Nu196 delivered on September 25, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu277 delivered on March 6, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 (5) subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the term “high-class house” means a house whose total floor area is 100 or more square meters and its appurtenant land is 50 or more, and the standard market price determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service according to Article 23 (4), 45 (1) and 60 of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 197) which was enforced at the time of its transfer shall not be determined by the standard market price of the building; if the standard market price is clearly determined by the Presidential Decree No. 97, the transfer price and acquisition price shall be determined by the Presidential Decree and the standard market price of the building at the time of its transfer shall not be determined by the standard market price under Article 115 (1) 1 (Act No. 929, Dec. 30, 1978).

2. In the case of assets located in a specific area under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which are stipulated in paragraph (3) of the same Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the same Article, the provision that the value to be converted in accordance with the method prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy at the time of its acquisition shall be the standard market price at the time of its acquisition, which was newly established by Presidential Decree No. 9698 of Dec. 31, 1979, and was enforced from January 1, 1980 under Article 1 of the Addenda of the same Enforcement Decree. As determined by the court below, the court below's decision rejecting the application of Article 115 (2) 1 (a) of the same Decree shall not be applied to the real estate transferred to December 22, 1979 prior to its enforcement, is just and without merit, and the provisions of Article 1115 (3) of the same Enforcement Decree shall not apply to the previous interpretation provision.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)