Even if it does not fall under Article 170 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), the method of calculating gains from transfer where the actual transaction price of a transaction other than a transaction with a corporation is confirmed.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), and Articles 170(4)1 and 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), the transfer value and acquisition value determined on capital gains shall, in principle, be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition at the time of transfer. In cases where the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed in transactions with the State, a local government, or other corporations, even if it does not fall under Article 170(4)3 of the same Decree, if the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed based on data submitted by the taxpayer or by investigation with the tax office, and if only one actual transaction price is confirmed other than a corporation, both transfer value and transfer value shall be calculated based on the standard market price.

Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990); Articles 170(1) and 170(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989);

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-

Plaintiff

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 90Gu875 delivered on April 17, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

In light of the provisions of Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act and Articles 170(4)1 and 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), transfer value and acquisition value determined transfer income shall, in principle, be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition. In case where the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition has been confirmed in transactions with the State, a local government, or a corporation, the transferor fails to make a report or makes a report under Article 95 or 100 of the Income Tax Act, but it fails to submit documentary evidence verifying the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer, and thus, it shall be confirmed that transfer value and acquisition value are different from the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer, and it shall be confirmed that there is no violation of Article 170(4)189 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

The precedent of a party member is not appropriate in this case. The argument is groundless.

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 Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)