Methods of market application for calculating transfer margin;

In the event that a transferred asset falls under a specific area at the time of its transfer, but the time of acquisition does not fall under a specific area at the time of its transfer, but at the time of its acquisition on December 31, 1974, the transfer value shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price and the acquisition value shall be the conversion value at the time

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The part that exceeds KRW 225,316,340 and KRW 45,063,260 and KRW 45,063,260 among the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of occasional amount of KRW 796,93,092 and defense tax of KRW 159,39,398,618, which the Defendant issued against the Plaintiff on September 16, 1988 shall be revoked. 2.3. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim shall be dismissed.

In full view of the above evidence No. 1 (tax notice), evidence No. 7-2 (Notice of Determination of National Tax) and evidence No. 1 and No. 2 (Notice of Determination of Capital Gains Tax), and the purport of evidence No. 7-1 (written appeal) of Seocho-gu, Seoul, 94-2 and No. 3, 04.64 square meters, which were acquired by inheritance on December 23, 1974, the Plaintiff shall be 1016-2 and 500, 150-10, 3, 1471-97, 921-7, 1477, 36, 97, 97, 97, 97, 16, 16.9-7, 36, 360, 360, 97, 97, 97, 198, 196, 36, 196, 196, 36, 197, 18, 16

Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is applied to determine the acquisition value above, delegates the method of determining the standard market price to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy without prescribing the delegated matters despite Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, so the above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is invalid in violation of the provisions of the Constitution that set the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation and the mother law, and the land in this case is not announced as a specific area at the time of its acquisition. Since the land in this case was only a specific area at the time of its transfer, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be determined as the standard market price based on the standard market price under the Local Tax Act, and the amount of tax calculated accordingly shall be KRW 54,32,239, defense tax amount, KRW 10,86,447, the amount of tax

On the other hand, Article 60 of the Income Tax Act delegates the method of determining the standard market price to the Presidential Decree, and Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended on May 8, 1987), which followed this, delegates only the method of calculating the acquisition value based on the standard market price at the time of transfer when the transferred asset, among the method of determining the standard market price, falls under a specific area at the time of transfer or was not a specific area at the time of its acquisition to the Ministry of Finance and Economy. Thus, the above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act re-consums such limited matters to subordinate laws and regulations within a specific scope, so it cannot be deemed that the prohibition of comprehensive re-Delegation or the invalidation of those violating the mother law is invalid (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2745, Dec. 22, 1989). Thus, the plaintiff's argument on this point is without merit, but it does not constitute the acquisition value at the time of transfer, and the acquisition value at the time of transfer under Article 15(15(17) of the Enforcement Decree.15) of the Act.

Therefore, the amount of capital gains tax and defense tax due to the transfer transaction of this case shall be KRW 225,316,340, and the amount exceeding the above amount in the disposition of this case shall be revoked in an unlawful manner. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of seeking the cancellation of the above excess portion, the remaining claim shall be dismissed in an unfair manner, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying the proviso of Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.