(a) The case holding that the transaction of the above real estate falls under Article 72 (3) 3, 4, and 5 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (Regulation No. 946 of the National Tax Service Directive) in light of the fact that a large number of real estate was resold without clear reasons or needs;

(b) The case holding that occasional assessment may be levied where the tax base is underreported to approximately 1/6 or the final return on the tax base is not filed;

(a) The case holding that a transaction of the above real estate falls under Article 72 (3) 3, 4, and 5 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (National Tax Service Directive No. 946) in light of the fact that a large number of real estate was acquired and resold without obvious reasons or necessity, the current status, location, holding period, scale, and method of the transaction of such real estate, and the frequency of the transaction

(b) The case holding that occasional assessment may be conducted on the grounds that persons who filed a return on the tax base to approximately 1/6 or who did not file a final return on the tax base fall under persons with substantial grounds deemed to be likely to evade taxes;

A. Article 23(1) of the Income Tax Act; Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989); Article 72(3)2 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (amended by Presidential Decree No. 946 of the National Tax Service Directive)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5238 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 263) 90Nu6293 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong191, 1531)

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu4569 delivered on December 28, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that each land in the attached Table 3, 5, and 3 of the judgment below that was acquired and transferred under the name of the non-party is actually acquired and transferred by Plaintiff 1, and the above non-party was lent only to the above non-party, so transfer income tax, etc. due to the transfer of each land is the plaintiff's taxpayer and the other land except each land in attached Table 2-1, attached Table 4-1, and attached Table 7-1 and 2 shall be calculated based on the standard market price, and it is confirmed that the actual transaction price of each land in this case should be calculated based on the actual transaction price, and there is no error in the rules of evidence, the omission of judgment, the abuse of the authority to impose

As to ground of appeal No. 2

Article 72(3)5 of the former Regulations on the Conduct of Property Tax Investigation (National Tax Service Directive No. 946) is effective regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5238, Nov. 27, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3768, Jul. 27, 1990). As seen above, Plaintiff 1 acquired and transferred the land listed in the above attached Table 3 and 5 under the name of the above Nonparty, as well as related evidence and records reveal that, in light of the current status, location, period of possession, size of transaction, and method of transaction of the real estate, the transaction of the above real estate constitutes each of the provisions on property tax transaction, and thus, the above real estate transaction constitutes a violation of the rules on property tax without the law, and thus, the court below’s error of the rules on the transfer of the land under Article 92 subparag. 3 and No. 4 of the above attached Table 1, Article 97 subparag. 36 of the former Rules on the Investigation of Property Tax without the Law, and there are no reasons therefor.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, under Article 125 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a possibility of tax evasion, the court below may impose occasional taxes, and under Article 100 (1) of the same Act, a resident who has the transfer income in the current year shall report the transfer income to the Government from May 1 to May 31 of the following year of the current year under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The plaintiff 1 reported the tax base for the year 1986 as KRW 11,881,930, which was the tax base for the year 1986 as KRW 1,878,60, which was the tax base for the year 1986, and the plaintiff 2 did not make the final return on the tax base, and therefore, the plaintiffs are those who have reasonable grounds to believe that the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)