(a) The method of calculating gains on transfer where either of the transfer value and acquisition value is unclear and unclear under the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978; Act No. 3175, Dec. 28, 1979);

(b) Requirements for calculating transfer margin pursuant to Article 115 (1) 1 (a) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978)

C. Whether the Commissioner of the National Tax Service calculates gains on transfer according to the specific area notice and ratio decision made at the time of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978)

A. In the calculation of gains on transfer under the interpretation of Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978; Act No. 3175, Dec. 28, 1979), the transfer value and the acquisition value shall be determined based on the same standard market price as the actual market price is different or different, and where the actual market price is unclear, the transfer value and the acquisition value shall be determined based on the same standard market price as the actual market price.

B. In order to calculate transfer margin by the multiple method pursuant to Article 115(1)1(a) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 9229 of Dec. 30, 1978), not only at the time of transfer, but also at the time of acquisition, the assets are located in the specific area and the multiple rate is stipulated.

C. Since the amendment of Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978), Article 23, Article 45, Article 60(a), and Article 9229 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229 of Dec. 30, 1978), in cases where the actual transaction price is unclear, capital gains shall be calculated based on the standard market price of taxation under the Local Tax Act at the time of transfer and acquisition. Thus, even if the Commissioner of the National Tax Service publicly notifies a specific area before the amendment of the above domestic law, and determines the rate, such determination shall not be deemed a legitimate specific area notice or determination, and thus, it shall not be deemed as the basis for the calculation of capital gains.

Articles 23, 45, and 60 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978; Act No. 13175, Dec. 28, 1979); Article 23, 45, and 60 of the former Income Tax Act; Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19229, Dec. 30, 1978); Article 115 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu95 delivered on July 8, 1980, 80Nu616 delivered on March 10, 1981, 80Nu6106 delivered on September 28, 1982, 82Nu134 delivered on July 12, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu169 delivered on June 24, 1986, 83Nu579 delivered on February 14, 1984, 83Nu613 delivered on May 29, 1984, 84Nu63 delivered on March 26, 1985, 84Nu727 delivered on November 26, 1985.

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu280 delivered on January 18, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

(1) First point

According to the main text of Article 27 (1) of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 3015, Dec. 19, 1977) which was enforced at the time of the acquisition of the real estate of this case, the transfer or acquisition time of assets shall be the date on which the relevant contract is concluded and part of the price other than the down payment is received or received. According to Article 27 (2) of the same Act, the above "part of the price" means cash or valuables of a similar nature other than the down payment. Thus, the decision of the court below that deemed the time of acquisition of the real estate of this case as of April 26, 1978 when the intermediate payment is received is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as

(2) 2

However, according to the records, it is apparent that the plaintiff's attorney did not make any assertion in the court below as a new fact only asserted in the court of final appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

(3) Third point

According to Article 23(4) of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978; Act No. 3175, Dec. 28, 1979) which was enforced at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value, and where the actual transaction value is unclear, the transfer value shall be based on the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant asset. According to Article 45(1)1 of the same Act, in calculating gains on transfer, the acquisition value of assets shall be deducted as necessary expenses in principle, but where the actual transaction value is unclear, the amount shall be deducted based on the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of the relevant asset. Meanwhile, in calculating gains on transfer, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be calculated based on the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of the relevant asset. In addition, if the actual transaction price is unclear, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be determined based on the standard market price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Nu18., Aug. 18, 198.

According to the records, the court below's decision that determined the transfer margin based on the standard market price, such as the transfer value and acquisition value, is appropriate in accordance with the above opinion of the party members, as long as the decision of the court below that the transfer margin was determined based on the standard market price as the transfer value and acquisition value became final and conclusive as it did not know the actual transfer value as well as the final return on the return on the return on the transfer of the property of this case.

(4) Remaining points

Of the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the remaining parts except the above points shall be criticized for the fact-finding by the court below as to the time of partial transfer of the real estate of this case or the fact-finding by the court below as the subject to which the transfer income of this case belongs. In light of the records, the court below's finding of evidence and fact-finding by the court below shall be justified and there are no errors in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence

2. The following grounds of appeal are examined by Defendant Litigation Performers.

Article 23, 45, and 60 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978) which was enforced at the time of transfer of 1,23,4,6, and 7 real estate at the time of original adjudication; Article 23, 45.1, and 60 of the said Act shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition if the actual transaction price is unclear; Article 115 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 929 of Dec. 30, 1978) provides that the transfer price shall be determined by the Presidential Decree No. 1968 of the said Act; Article 115.28 of the said Act shall be determined by the standard market price at the time of its acquisition; Article 9.48 of the said Act shall be determined by the Presidential Decree No. 97 of the said Act; and Article 19.2 of the said Act shall be determined by the standard market price at each time of the transfer price at the same time.

Under the above opinion of the court below, prior to the above amendment of the above Acts and subordinate statutes (amended by April 26, 1978), it cannot be deemed that there was a legitimate public notice of specific areas and multiple factors on the real estate in this case, and therefore, in case where the defendant recognizes that the actual transaction price of the real estate is unclear, the defendant can calculate the transfer margin by using the standard market price under the Local Tax Act at the time of transfer and acquisition as the standard market price under Article 115 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the value assessed by the multiple method cannot be considered as the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case which assessed the value assessed by the multiple method as the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition is unlawful within the limit exceeding the reasonable tax amount (the tax amount calculated by considering the standard market price under the Local Tax Act as the standard market

On the other hand, in case of assets in a specific area under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, with no rate for the specific area at the time of its acquisition, the provision that the value to be converted according to the method prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall be the standard market price at the time of its acquisition, which was newly established by the Presidential Decree No. 9698 of Dec. 31, 1979, and was enforced from January 1, 1980 pursuant to Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. As determined by the court below, in case of the above real estate transferred from February 10, 1979 to May 16 of the same year as determined by the court below, it cannot be applied to the above real estate before its enforcement, and thus, the court below's rejection of the application of the same Article is justifiable. The

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)