(a) Method of calculating gains on transfer where data which can recognize the actual transaction values are submitted in imposing transfer income tax under the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3271 of December 13, 1980);

(b) The time limit of submission of data capable of attesting the actual transaction price in an appeal litigation disputing a disposition of capital gains tax;

A. The purpose of Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3271, Dec. 13, 1980); and Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10120, Dec. 31, 1980) is to calculate transfer margin in calculating transfer margin, the transfer value and acquisition value are based on the actual transaction value, but if a taxpayer fails to make a preliminary return on transfer margin or a final return on tax base, the transfer value and acquisition value can be determined based on the standard market price by presumption that the actual transaction value is unclear, and the standard market price cannot be determined based on the actual transaction value.

B. In an administrative litigation disputing the illegality of taxation disposition, the parties can submit arguments and evidence supporting the objective amount of tax liability until the closing of pleadings in the lawsuit, so even in an appeal litigation disputing the disposition of capital gains tax, the evidence proving the actual transaction price may be submitted until the closing of pleadings.

A. Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3271, Dec. 13, 1980); Article 170(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 10120, Dec. 31, 1980); Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 136 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu553 Decided December 27, 1983; 84Nu394 Decided October 23, 1984; 84Nu394 Decided February 8, 1985; 84Nu410 Decided September 25, 1984; 84Nu106 Decided October 23, 1984; 84Nu394 Decided November 13, 1984; 84Nu356 Decided February 8, 1985; and 84Nu410 Decided December 8, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1081 Decided June 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not entitled to 10/50 of the total amount of 10/100 of the total amount of 10/50 of the total amount of 10/57 of the total amount of 30/100 of the total amount of 20/10 of the total amount of 10/10 of the total amount of 40/10 of the total amount of 20/10 of the total amount of 30/10 of the total amount of 40/10 of the total amount of 10/10 of the total amount of 40/10 of the total amount of 100 of the total amount of 10/10 of the total amount of 10/10 of the total amount of 30/10 of the total amount of 40/10 of the total amount of the 30/500 of the total amount of the 14/100 of the total amount of the 100.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 3271, Dec. 13, 1980) which was enforced at the time of the Plaintiff’s land transfer, the transfer price and acquisition price shall be calculated based on the actual transaction price, but shall be determined based on the standard market price at the time of the transfer or acquisition of the relevant asset if the Presidential Decree prescribes, and pursuant to Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 10120, Dec. 31, 1980), the transfer price and acquisition price shall be determined based on the standard market price if the preliminary return or final return on tax base pursuant to Article 95 or 100 of the Act is not made. The purport of each provision is that if a taxpayer fails to make the preliminary return or final return on tax base, the actual transaction price can be determined based on the standard market price which is presumed to be unclear, and thus, the Plaintiff may not dispute the amount of tax assessment by the time of an appeal 480.

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 Kim Dal-sik (Presiding Justice)