(a) Method of calculation of the actual transaction price by asset, where it is confirmed that the actual transaction price of all real estate is confirmed through a blanket transaction, but it is impossible to divide each actual transaction

(b) In the case of paragraph (a) above, if there is an asset whose actual transaction price is unclear, the method of conversion into the actual transaction price;

A. Since the transfer income amount shall be calculated by asset transfer, where the transfer income amount is to be calculated based on the actual transaction value, and where several real estate, such as land and buildings, are traded en bloc, the actual transaction value of the entire real estate is confirmed, but it is impossible to divide each actual transaction value, then each actual transaction value may be calculated by calculating it in proportion to the standard market price by asset transfer pursuant to Article 170(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 131

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, if one of the actual transaction values is unclear, the other party may convert the actual transaction value under the proviso of Article 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the basis of the actual transaction value of the divided one.

A. (B) Articles 23(6) and 45(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 170(2)(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-

Plaintiff

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu31909 delivered on May 4, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since capital gains shall be calculated by asset transfer, in cases where several real estate, such as land and buildings, are traded en bloc in accordance with the actual transaction price, if it is confirmed, but it is impossible to divide each actual transaction price only if it is impossible to distinguish each actual transaction price, the actual transaction price may be calculated by way of calculating in proportion to the standard market price by asset transfer pursuant to Article 170(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990). In such a case, where one of the actual transaction prices is unclear, the actual transaction price of the other may be converted according to the proviso of Article 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act based on the actual transaction price of the divided one (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu845, Sept. 2

Therefore, the court below's determination of transfer tax amount by applying the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act on the ground that the actual transaction price of the entire land and buildings in this case where a building and land are transferred collectively is confirmed, and the distinction between the actual transaction price of the land and the building is unclear, and thus it is impossible to confirm the acquisition price even if the value of the part of the actual transaction price of the entire land and the building is calculated pursuant to Article 170 (2) of the above Enforcement Decree, the disposition of this case in this case is legitimate, and it is reasonable in accordance with the above purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "if the actual transaction price or only one of the transfer price or acquisition price cannot be confirmed" as provided in the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the above Enforcement Decree as alleged in the ground of appeal.

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)