Whether the contract is presumed to have been concluded according to the contents of the report where the contract for land, etc. has been reported in accordance with Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the

If the parties who reported the contract for the land, etc. to the competent Do governor pursuant to the provisions of Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory enter into the contract without any change, the contract shall be presumed to have been entered into in accordance with the reported contents, unless there are special circumstances, such as the erroneous statement of the contract amount at the time of the report, or the new determination of the price due to the price fluctuation, etc. between the date of transaction report and the date of actual transaction, or

Article 21-7 of the Act on Utilization and Management

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5005 delivered on November 15, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If the parties who reported the contract for the land, etc. to the competent Do governor without any change in accordance with the provisions of Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory enter into the contract without any change, it shall be presumed that the contract has been concluded in accordance with the reported content, barring special circumstances, such as where the contract amount is entered in a price different from the reported contract amount in error at the time when the contract was reported, or where the price is to be newly determined due to the price fluctuation, etc. between the transaction report date and the actual transaction date, or there are other similar circumstances. The burden of proof as to the above special circumstance shall be deemed to be the claimant, namely, the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision

The court below held that in this case where there is no evidence to deem that the contract amount under the land transaction agreement of this case falling under the share of the plaintiff was reduced by 153,696,500, the contract amount under the land transaction agreement of this case by reporting the land transaction contract of this case to the non-party Lee Jong-ro, Kim Jong-seok and the original purchaser's sale of the land at the original time as the price of the contract amount to the non-party Lee Jae-soo, the non-party 1,067,53,500 won, and there is no evidence to support that the contract amount under the above land transaction agreement of this case was reduced by the contract amount under the above land transaction agreement of this case, the contract amount shall be deemed to be the actual transfer value agreed between the plaintiff and the non-party Lee Jae-soo, the buyer. In light of the records, the court below'

In a case where the facts presumed to be actual transaction price in the process of a lawsuit are revealed and there is no counter-proof thereof, it shall be deemed to be the case where the actual transaction price is confirmed. Therefore, we cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment below that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles under Article

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)