No transfer margin, preliminary return or final return shall be made, if the actual transaction price is clearly revealed.

According to the purport of Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3175 of Dec. 28, 1979) and Article 170(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10120 of Dec. 31, 1980), in cases where there is no preliminary return or final return on transfer margin, the tax authority may determine the amount of capital gains on the basis of the standard market price without any investigation by presumption that the actual transaction price is unclear. However, in cases where there is no such notification or report, if there is any evidence to reverse such presumption, that is, if the actual transaction price is revealed through the data submitted by a resident or the data investigated by the tax authority, it shall be based on the actual transaction price, and it shall not be based on the standard market price, which

Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 3175, Dec. 28, 1979); Articles 170(3) and 170(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 10120, Dec. 31, 1980);

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu553 Decided December 27, 1983, 85Nu553 Decided April 9, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu922 Decided July 8, 1986

Plaintiff

Head of Southern District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1168 delivered on July 25, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party 1 on July 10, 1978 and acquired it in 6,200,000 won, but it transferred it to the non-party 2 on July 30, 1979 due to the invasion of real estate competition to the road in 6,20,000 won, such as the purchase price. According to the records, the court below's above measures are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no error in the misapprehension of legal judgment of the court below.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3175 of Dec. 28, 1979), applicable to this case, the transfer value and acquisition value, which form the basis for calculating gains on transfer, shall be based on the actual transaction value, and where the actual transaction value is unclear, it shall be based on the standard market price at the time of the transfer or acquisition of the assets. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 170(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10120 of Dec. 31, 1980), where a resident who transfers assets fails to make the gains on transfer, makes a decision on the transfer value and acquisition value based on the standard market price, and if the resident who received the decision on the gains on transfer files the final return on the tax base, the transfer value shall be determined based on

In light of the purport of the above provision, in a case where there is no preliminary return or final return on transfer margin, the tax authority may determine the amount of transfer income based on the standard market price without any investigation by presumption that the actual transaction price is unclear, but in a case where there is no such report or absence, there is evidence to reverse such presumption, i.e., where the actual transaction price is revealed by the data submitted by residents or the data investigated by the tax authority, it shall be based on the actual transaction price and shall not be based on the standard market price, which is the method of the preliminary investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu5, Apr. 9, 1985), and the judgment of the court below to the purport above is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles

3. 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.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)