Where the actual transaction price is unclear, a specific area notice issued by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service before amendment of the law to determine the transfer and acquisition price as the standard market price (negative)

Article 23, Article 45, and Article 60 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229 of December 5, 1978, Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229 of December 30, 1978) provides that the transfer and acquisition value shall be based on each standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition in cases where the actual transaction price is unclear in taxation of transfer income tax, and Article 23, 45, and Article 60 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229 of December 30, 1978), even if there

Articles 23, 45, and 60 of the Income Tax Act, Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu606 delivered on April 9, 1985 (Gong1985,745) 85Nu142 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986,1394) 87Nu716 delivered on October 26, 1987 (Gong1987,1813) 90Nu226 delivered on April 27, 1990 (Gong190,1191) 90Nu355 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong190,1739)

Law Firm Han-won et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu6381 delivered on March 28, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

In comparison with the records of the judgment of the court below, there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit in the court below which acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff leased the farmland to the non-party for eight years, not the plaintiff himself. The arguments are groundless.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Article 23, Article 45, and Article 60 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 5, 1978; Presidential Decree No. 1158, Dec. 30, 198; Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 198; and Article 115 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 198; Presidential Decree prior to the amendment, in a case where the actual transaction price is unclear, gains from transfer shall be calculated based on the tax base under the Local Tax Act at the time of transfer and acquisition. Thus, even if the Commissioner of the National Tax Service publicly notifies a specific area for the determination of the standard market price before the amendment of the above Act and the determination of the rate is made without the basis of the Act and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate public notice or determination of the ratio (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu606, Apr. 9, 1985; Presidential Decree No. 27868.

In this regard, the court below, on February 15, 1978 before the plaintiff acquired the land of this case, announced as a specific area by the National Tax Service notice 78-2, but the above notice by the National Tax Service was made without any legal basis before the amendment of the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, so the land of this case at the time of its acquisition cannot be included in the specific area at the time of its acquisition. Even if the transfer was made within the specific area, in calculating the transfer margin, the calculation of the acquisition value and the transfer value under Article 115 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154 of May 8, 1987) which was enforced at the time of its transfer shall be justified in calculating the transfer margin by the standard market value under the Local Tax Act (it shall not be calculated by the conversion method under paragraph (3) of the above Enforcement Decree because it does not correspond to the specific area at the time of its acquisition).

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)