Seoul High Court 2014Nu63093 ( April 24, 2015)

If the date of acquisition of inherited land is before the public notice of new officially announced land price of the year concerned, it shall be applied and calculated.

The time of acquisition of the land at issue acquired by inheritance is February 1997, and since the new officially announced value (date of publication: June 1997) is before it is publicly announced, the acquisition value shall not be re-calculated by applying the standard market price in 1997.

2015Du43025

○○, ○○

port of origin

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu63093 Decided April 24, 2015

October 15, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal (the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed is not timely filed)

The case shall be examined to the extent of supplement).

1. The main sentence of Article 97(1)1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that the acquisition value to be deducted from the transfer value when calculating gains on transfer of a resident shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value incurred in acquiring assets, in principle. Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same) delegated by Article 97(5) of the former Income Tax Act provides that the value of assets inherited or donated under Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of the date of commencing the inheritance or donation shall be deemed as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition. Meanwhile, Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that, in cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price at the market price at the date of inheritance or donation, the value of land appraised under Article 16(1).

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the acquisition value of capital gains tax of ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant land”) that completed the registration of ownership transfer for each one-half share due to the inheritance by an agreement division held on February 17, 1997 should be assessed as the officially assessed individual land price in 1996, which was publicly notified as of the date of commencing the inheritance, and otherwise, the individual land price in 197, which was the year to which the date of commencing the inheritance belongs, should be applied.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned provisions and relevant legal principles, the part on the premise that Article 164(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act can be applied when calculating the acquisition value of inherited land as the actual transaction value is inappropriate, but the conclusion that the individual land price in 1996 should be applied as the acquisition value of the instant land is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation

Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu4411 Decided August 23, 1996; 98Du16774 Decided February 11, 200; 2007Du16493 Decided June 24, 201, etc. cited in the grounds of appeal, are related to the case at the time when no provision like the Enforcement Decree of this case exists, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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.