In the case of real estate speculation transactions, whether the actual transaction after the lapse of the final return period is calculated based on the amount of transfer margin (affirmative)

In calculating gains on transfer of capital gains under Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the Income Tax Act and Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a transaction falls under the “transaction designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to restrain real estate speculation” as one of the actual transaction values, which is not the standard market price, the transfer margin may be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price even after the expiration of the final application period, if the actual transaction price is confirmed through an investigation by the tax authority

Article 23 (4) of the Income Tax Act

Article 45(1)

Article 170 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu2181 delivered on July 20, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the court below accepted the measures that recognized the transfer margin of KRW 6,800,00 by selling the apartment of this case at KRW 36,828,00 on May 2, 1987 and paying KRW 7,400,00 for the down payment and KRW 4,400,00 for the first intermediate rent. The plaintiff eventually transferred the apartment of this case to the non-party for KRW 17,80,000 for the transfer of KRW 17,80,000 to the non-party, and there is no error as to the theory of lawsuit, which is without merit.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal (1) and (2) are also examined.

Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the Income Tax Act and Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate one of the cases of actual transaction value, not the standard market price, in calculating gains on transfer of capital gains, as one of the cases of transaction value, rather than the standard market price, and in this case, the purport is that when the actual transaction value is confirmed by the defendant's investigation, the transaction value can be calculated by calculating gains on transfer based on the amount of actual transaction after the final return period expires. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision pointing this out by the appellant is not rejected. Thus, the Supreme Court decision pointing this out is entirely different from the case of this case, and thus, is groundless

The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

The court below is just in holding that the contract deposit and intermediate payment of KRW 7,400,000 and the intermediate payment of KRW 4,400,000 paid by the plaintiff upon entering into the sales contract for the apartment of this case is the acquisition price, and there is no violation of the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals 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)