Method of Capital Gains Calculation

Comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Article 23(1), 2, 5(6), Article 95(1), (2), and Article 100(1), (2), and (3) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 170(3), (6), and (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the method of calculating capital gains is based on the actual transaction price and the standard market price are calculated based on the actual transaction price, the calculation based on the actual transaction price is based on the time when there exists the return on the transfer income under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act or the final return on the return on the transfer income under Article 100 of the same Act and Article 170(4

Articles 23, 100, and 95 of the Income Tax Act, Article 170 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu222 delivered on December 27, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 11684 delivered on November 27, 197; Supreme Court Decision 253Nu169 delivered on June 25, 200; Decision 23(1)1887 of the Income Tax Act; Decision 579No 10570 delivered on December 27,

Dual Disability

Head of Daegu Tax Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition that the defendant imposes capital gains tax of KRW 352,957 and 35,295 on the plaintiff on June 21, 197 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2735, Jun. 11, 1972); Article 18 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Jun. 15, 1972); Article 17 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2705, Dec. 24, 197); Article 23(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2785, Dec. 24, 1974); Article 17 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Jun. 15, 1975; Act No. 1065, Aug. 19, 1975; Act No. 2705, Dec. 24, 1974); and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1745, Jul. 38, 1975, 1974).

However, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 639,00 as the land category on the register was already formed at the time of the acquisition of forest land or housing site at the time of its acquisition. On July 15, 1975, the Plaintiff sold this amount at KRW 923,000 to Nonparty Kim Jong-chul. However, the Defendant calculated the transfer value according to the above actual transaction price and imposed the transfer income tax (and defense tax based thereon) on the Plaintiff. However, even though the Defendant calculated the transfer value according to the above actual transaction price, it asserts that the transfer income tax of this case (and defense tax based thereon) was illegal.

Therefore, the defendant's calculation of transfer income tax of this case against the plaintiff is illegal or not based on the current base value, and considering the provisions of Article 23 (1), 2, 5, 6, 95 (1) and (2), Article 100 (1), 2, and (3), Article 170 (3), 4, 6, and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the provisions of Article 170 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when the defendant calculates transfer income tax of this case on the basis of the current base value, there are two cases where the method of calculating transfer income tax is based on the current base value and there are two cases where the actual market value is calculated based on the current base value, or where there is a final return on transfer income under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act and Article 170 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is interpreted that the transfer value is calculated based on the current base value, and the plaintiff's final return on transfer income tax of this case is not reported.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is unfair, and is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)