Whether the cost disbursed for the purchase of the apartment sold by the bond bid system is included in the cost for acquisition (affirmative)

In case of the acquisition of apartment buildings sold by the bonds auction system, the purchase of the bonds is essential for the winning, and the expenses paid for the purchase of the national housing bonds shall be included in the cost for acquisition of the apartment as the price actually used to acquire the above apartment, along with the sale price.

Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act, Article 86 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 94 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu588 delivered on October 22, 1985 (dong)

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu799 delivered on March 6, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined (the grounds of appeal by the defendant Kim Jin-woo, to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of appeal).

The court below acknowledged the fact that in order to respond to the sale of the apartment of this case with macrofics, it must purchase the bonds and determine the winning amount according to the different amount. The plaintiff purchased the bonds of 6,310,000 won and acquired the winning amount of the apartment of this case to the non-party, and then transferred the bonds with the press premium of 6,00,000 won, and it issued the above bonds and collected the money equivalent to the amount of the above bonds on behalf of the non-party. Since the plaintiff did not have any income related to the purchase of the above bonds, the part imposing capital gains tax on the purchase amount of the bonds is illegal. Thus, even after examining the record, the court below's above fact-finding is just and acceptable, and since Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act and Article 94 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the expenses required for the acquisition of the above bonds, which are necessary expenses for calculating gains on transfer of the apartment of this case, shall be included in the acquisition price of the above bonds calculated by applying mutatis mutandis Article 86 (1).

In the above purport, the court below was just in calculating the acquisition value of the apartment of this case by adding the 6,310,000 won of the national housing bonds paid by the plaintiff at the time of the sale of the apartment of this case to the sale price for the apartment of this case, and there is no error of law

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the 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)