(a) Where the cost for acquiring the national housing bonds can be included in the cost for acquisition of real estate and in such cases, the value of the bonds included in the transfer value of assets (=trade

(b) Where the purchase price of bonds is not included in the transfer price of real estate without transferring the national housing bonds, the value of the bonds included in the acquisition cost of real estate (=the difference between the face value and the market appraised value at the

A. Since the national housing bonds are securities with property value, if the acquisition cost is to be included in the cost for acquisition of the real estate, the national housing bonds will be transferred at the time of transferring the real estate, and the price for the bonds is recovered. In this case, the transfer price of the assets should also be included in the purchase price of the bonds

(b) Where the transfer price of national housing bonds is not included in the purchase price of national housing bonds without transferring the national housing bonds, the difference between the face value of the bonds purchased and the market appraised value at the time of the purchase may be included in the acquisition cost, and the total face value shall not be deducted from the acquisition cost.

Article 45(1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 86(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 94(1)1 of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu254 delivered on October 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 1569) 85Nu766 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3131);

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 4 others

Head of the Office of Government

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1899 delivered on December 13, 1991

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu185 delivered on September 2, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

The court below's decision that the loss incurred from the disposition of this case was not recognized as necessary expenses for the transfer income of the land and the building on the ground that the machinery and instruments of this case are completely separate assets that cannot be seen as annexed to the land and the building of this case. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of incomplete deliberation or of incomplete recognition of its nature. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss it.

As to the second ground for appeal

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff transferred the land and the machinery and apparatus of this case to another person by first transferring them and then transferring them again to another person. According to the records, the loss incurred by the disposition of the above machinery and apparatus of this case was damaged due to fire that occurred in the building of this case (Evidence No. 9, No. 10-1, No. 2, and the Non-party Witness’s Testimony). In addition, even though the purchase of the machinery and apparatus of this case was an essential element to acquire the land and the building of this case, the purchase price of the land of this case is not mandatory, and thus, the loss incurred by the separate disposition is naturally included in the acquisition price of the land and the building of this case or other necessary expenses.

The precedent of the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to acquisition value under the Income Tax Act, and there is no reason for discussion.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in the process of acquiring and transferring the instant land and buildings, the Plaintiff paid necessary expenses of KRW 12,525,710, including acquisition tax and registration tax, KRW 3,515,090, KRW 703,020, KRW 38,400, KRW 38,400, and KRW 3,160,000, and other expenses for the purchase of national housing bonds, and accordingly deducted from the transfer value when calculating the transfer income tax and its defense tax due to the transfer of the instant land and buildings.

However, since national housing bonds have property value as securities, if the acquisition cost of the real estate is intended to be included in the cost for acquisition of the real estate, it shall be limited to cases where the national housing bonds are transferred at the time of transferring the real estate, and the price of the bonds is recovered. In such cases, the transfer price of the assets shall also be included in the purchase price of the bonds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu254, Oct. 22, 1985; 85Nu766, Oct. 28, 1986).

In addition, in a case where the national housing bond purchased at the time of the purchase of the pertinent real estate was not transferred, and the purchase price of the national housing bond is not included in the transfer price, the difference between the face value and the market value at the time of the purchase of the said bond can only be included in the acquisition cost, and the purchase price or the total face value cannot be deducted from the acquisition cost. Therefore, the court below should clearly state that the Plaintiff’s purchase price of the national housing bond is either the actual purchase price or the face value at the time of the purchase, or the difference between the market value at the time of the purchase and the market value at the time of the purchase, and that the value of the instant land and the building transferred by the Plaintiff is also included in the price of the national housing bond purchased by the Plaintiff at the time of the

Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of necessary expenses for the transfer income of real estate, or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal to the court below are assessed against the plaintiff.