1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the contents as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be added to the item "4. The plaintiff's assertion on the application of the standard market price of capital gains tax" in the end of paragraph (2) of Article 114 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001) which was made before the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001) which was converted from the standard market price method is applied to the transfer of this case, which was made before the application of the principle on the calculation method of capital gains tax to the actual transaction price. However, in case where the resident has made a preliminary or final return on the tax base of capital gains tax, and the reported amount is different from the fact, if the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office has confirmed the actual transaction price, such verified amount shall be the transfer value or acquisition value, and the tax base and tax amount shall be corrected.

It argues that even if a disposition of revised assessment is made in accordance with the provisions, the scope of the disposition of revised assessment should not exceed the transfer margin based on the standard market price.

However, the interpretation as alleged by the plaintiff is not only contrary to the language and text of the above provision, but also cannot be accepted in light of the legislative intent of the proviso of Article 114 (4) of the above case where the tax authority intends to impose a false report on the taxpayer by selecting and falsely reporting the actual transaction price, and the reason why the amendment of the provision is made and the taxpayer files a false report on actual transaction price

Supreme Court on April 29, 2010