[1] The case holding that the sale of land and a building does not constitute a case where the purchase price of such land and a building is clearly distinguished

[2] In a case where the acquisition value of land and a building is not divided, the calculation of the deemed rent for the building and the appropriation of depreciation costs in the calculation of real estate rental income (=the calculation method in proportion to the value based on the standard market price of the land and the building)

[1] The case holding that since the value of a building stated in a tax invoice or balance sheet is nothing more than that calculated in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the return of value-added tax, since the value of the land and a building stipulated in a sales contract prepared at the time of the sales contract cannot be deemed as a case where the classification of the value of the land

[2] In calculating real estate rental income, in calculating the deemed rent for a building and appropriating depreciation costs, the total acquisition value of the land and building can be known, but if the acquisition value of the land and building is not divided, it is reasonable to divide it by the method of calculating it in proportion to the value according to the standard market price of the land and building, unless there are special circumstances to deem the ratio substantially unreasonable.

[1] Article 100 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 170 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994), Article 48-2 (3) (see current Article 48-2 (4)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1498 of Apr. 27, 1996) / [2] Article 100 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 170 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467 of Dec. 31, 194), Article 48-2 (2) (see current Article 48-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du4761 delivered on July 9, 1999

[Judgment of the court below]

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu5717 delivered on November 10, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. In purchasing the instant land and buildings from the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) without distinguishing the value of the instant land and buildings from that of Nonparty ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”), the lower court determined that the sales contract was concluded by setting a total purchase price of KRW 6,80,00,00 without distinguishing the value of the land and buildings from that of the instant land and buildings. The Nonparty Co., Ltd. did not constitute a separate sales contract for the instant land and building under Article 48-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14988, Apr. 27, 1996) by calculating the value of the instant building in proportion to the value calculated according to the standard market value of taxation of the instant land and building in proportion to that calculated according to the relevant market value of the instant building, and that the value of the instant land and the building prepared on the balance sheet, including value-added tax return and payment.

2. In light of the records and relevant statutes, the recognition and determination by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, in the calculation of real estate rental income, in the calculation of the deemed rent for a building and the appropriation of depreciation costs, the total acquisition value of the land and building can be known, but if the acquisition value of the land and building is not divided, it is reasonable to calculate it in proportion to the value based on the standard market price of the land and building, unless there are special circumstances to the extent that the ratio is not remarkably unreasonable.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the classification of land and building value.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)