In making a preliminary return of land transaction contract under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, whether filing a false report on the estimated transfer amount at a price lower than the actual transaction price constitutes a case where Article 170 (4) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190) violates the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (affirmative)

In order to transfer land within a zone where a transaction report is made on the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, a false report on the estimated amount of transfer is an act that violates Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 21-7 (1) and Article 33 subparagraph 4 of the same Act, and this constitutes a violation of Article 170 (4) subparagraph 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 190) which provides cases where a tax can be imposed based on the actual transaction price.

Article 170 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4829 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,715) 92Nu5836 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992,2439) 92Nu11282 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1180)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Gu1911 delivered on February 4, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

Based on the facts without dispute and the adopted evidence, the court below held that the plaintiffs acquired 6,978,00 won in 6,90,000 won in cooperation with the non-party 1 on May 17, 1989, and sold 250,000,000 won to the non-party 2 and non-party 4 around June 9, 1990. The plaintiffs reported 41,863,920 won which is less than the actual transaction price when they reported the contract of the forest of this case pursuant to Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and that the defendant reported 41,863,920 won which is less than the actual transaction price in this case, and that the transfer of the forest of this case by the plaintiffs violated the provisions of Article 23 (4) 1 proviso of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 190), Article 170 (4) 2 (e) of the former Income Tax Act.

In order to transfer land within a transaction area prescribed by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, a false report on the estimated transfer price is an act that violates the laws and subordinate statutes, such as Articles 21-7(1) and 33 subparag. 4 of the same Act, and this constitutes a case where "in case of transferring real estate" under Article 170(4)2(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5836, Jul. 10, 192). The above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is based on delegation of the provisions of Article 23(4)1 proviso and Article 45(1)1(a) proviso of the same Act, and it is not recognized that there is no basis for the mother Act or that there is no possibility of speculation in the forest of this case due to the record that there is no speculation in the forest of this case.

Therefore, in the same purport, the judgment of the court below that supported the disposition of this case, which calculated the tax amount based on the actual transaction price as to the forest land transaction in this case, is just and there is no error as

All appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)