Whether reporting the estimated transfer amount at the time of preliminary return of land transaction contract prescribed by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory at a price lower than the actual transaction price falls under Article 170 (4) 2 (e)

In order to transfer land within a transaction report zone prescribed by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, a false report on the estimated transfer price is a violation of Articles 21-7(1) and 33 subparag. 4 of the same Act (defluence by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993). This constitutes a violation of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190), which stipulates cases where real estate can be taxed based on the actual transaction price.

Article 21-7(1), Article 3 subparag. 4 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (Elimination by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993), Article 23(4)1 proviso, and Article 45(1)1 proviso of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 170(4)2(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5836 delivered on July 10, 1992, 92Nu11282 delivered on March 9, 1993, 93Nu5857 delivered on June 25, 1993

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu19250 delivered on June 23, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 21-7 (1) and Article 33 (4) 4 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990) which provides cases where the amount of transfer can be taxed based on the actual transaction price is a violation of Article 170 (4) 2 (e) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Jun. 25, 1993; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5857, Jun. 25, 1993); the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 190; e., Article 23 (4) proviso of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4281, Dec. 31, 190) and Article 45 (1) 1 proviso (e) of the former Income Tax Act).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and the argument to criticize the court below from other opinions is not acceptable, and the precedents of members of the party (Law No. 91Nu4829, Dec. 24, 1991) are not different to be invoked in this case.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land, including the land in this case, was sold to many buyers who want to acquire apartment unit right from 1985 to 3 years and 60,000 won, and that the plaintiffs purchased the land in this case on a large scale, the plaintiffs acquired the land in this case on March 21, 1986 and agreed to the redevelopment project of local residents on November 26, 1987, without actively participating in the redevelopment project after the land in this case was designated as the redevelopment project area, most of the land acquired at 88,684 square meters including the land in this case, including the land in this case, was sold to the majority buyers who want to acquire apartment unit right, and that the plaintiffs disposed of about 3 years and 60,000 won of acquisition value of the land in this case, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquisition circumstances of the land in this case and the period of holding the land in this case.

3. Therefore, 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 Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)