(a) In light of the provisions of Article 27 of the Income Tax Act and Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act concerning the time of acquiring or transferring assets, the case holding that it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s confession that purchased forest land on a specific date is not related to the date of concluding a contract for selling and buying forest, i.

B. Whether Article 72(3)6 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (National Tax Service Directive No. 980) is invalid, and the interpretation of the above provision

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below against the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing which found that the plaintiff transferred 10 forest land to 10 persons without hearing the preparation process of documentary evidence and the contents of documentary evidence

A. The case holding that if the plaintiff purchased the forest land of this case on December 16, 1986 through the complaint stated on the date of pleading, and the defendant invoked the plaintiff's confession through the preparatory documents stated on the date of pleading, the time of acquisition and transfer shall be, in principle, the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant assets except for the case falling under any subparagraph of Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since the time of acquisition and transfer in calculating the transfer margin of the assets in accordance with Article 27 of the Income Tax Act and Article 53 (1) of the same Act, it is reasonable to view that the confession of this case is not related

B. Article 170 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989 provides that "it shall be based on the actual transaction price pursuant to delegation of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment by the Presidential Decree No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990," and subparagraph 2 provides that "where it is possible to confirm the actual transaction price as at the time of transfer or acquisition of real estate in a transaction designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as deemed necessary to restrain a certain scale of transactions or other real estate speculation in an area, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall designate a transaction to be calculated based on the actual transaction price, and there is no restriction on the procedure or method for designating such transaction. Thus, if the area of the land is less than 10 million won in the form of instructions and thus, it shall be deemed that the total value of the land is less than 150 million won in total or more than its actual transaction price.

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the plaintiff transferred a forest water parcel to 10 persons with only the evidence, including the evidence, which contains the contents of the documentary evidence, without sufficient deliberation as to the preparation process of documentary evidence and the contents of documentary evidence, by means of examining the holders of documentary evidence as witnesses, and reversed the judgment below in violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing.

A. Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act), Article 27 of the Income Tax Act, Article 53(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), Article 72(3)6(c) of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax (National Tax Service Directive No. 980), Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 183 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu484 delivered on September 29, 1987 (Gong1987, 1668) 87Nu654 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 711) 90Nu3768 delivered on July 27, 1990 (Gong190, 1824) 90Nu6781 delivered on October 30, 1990 (Gong190, 2472)

Plaintiff-Appellant Lee Young-con et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu6442 delivered on May 16, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to the records, the plaintiff himself purchased the forest land of this case ( Address 1 omitted) on December 16, 1986 through a complaint as stated at the first day for pleading of the court below. The plaintiff used the confession of this case through a preparatory document dated March 14, 1990 stated by the defendant on the sixth day for pleading of the court below. Thus, in calculating gains on transfer of assets pursuant to Article 27 of the Income Tax Act and Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the time of acquisition and transfer shall be the date of liquidation except in cases falling under any subparagraph of Article 53 (1) of the Decree. Thus, the confession of this case shall not be deemed the date of conclusion of the contract of the forest of this case, but it shall be deemed that the date of settlement, that is, the date of acquisition of the forest of this case, the date of conclusion of the contract of purchase of the forest of this case, and the date of acquisition of the forest of this case shall not be deemed to be the date of confession lawfully cancelled.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the plaintiff acquired the forest land of this case on December 16, 1986 is just and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law that recognized the fact that there was no dispute, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below, the fact that the plaintiff acquired the forest land of this case, as

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 5

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act before it was amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990, the acquisition value and transfer value, which forms the basis for calculating gains on transfer of assets, shall, in principle, be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and transfer of assets: Provided, That if it is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be based on the actual transaction value of the assets. Article 170(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act before it was amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989, which provides that "if it is based on the actual transaction value pursuant to the above delegation of the Act, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service may confirm the actual transaction value at the time of transfer or acquisition; 2.3. It shall be one of the cases designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to designate a transaction to be calculated based on the actual transaction value and it shall not be binding on the procedure or method of designating such transaction.

In addition, when considering the contents and purpose of the above Directive provisions, if the total area of the land acquired during one taxable period is not less than 10,000 square meters and its value is not less than 50 million won, even if the total area of the land transferred during one taxable period is less than 10,000 square meters or its value is less than 50,000 won, gains on transfer shall

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the transfer of the transferred asset of this case constitutes Article 72 (3) 6 of the above Directive, and that there is an error of misunderstanding the validity or purport of the provision in the judgment of the court below.

3. Determination as to each of the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4

The lower court: (a) purchased the forest land of this case from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2 with an intention to construct and sell 500 households; (b) borrowed 100,000,000 won from Nonparty 1; (c) decided to transfer 14,000 square meters out of the above forest land to Nonparty 1 on September 2, 1985; (d) completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 16, 1986; and (e) determined to the above Nonparty 1 by specifying 30,73.75 square meters in the land of this case to Nonparty 2, including address 2 or 9,73.75 square meters, which were divided into the above forest land, the lower court: (a) determined to the effect that the Plaintiff did not register ownership transfer to Nonparty 3 under its own name; and (b) determined that the Plaintiff’s taxation disposition was unlawful, including the Plaintiff’s certificate 1 to Nonparty 2, and (c) the Plaintiff’s evidence 81 or 888, respectively.

However, the court below examined the evidence cited in order to recognize the above facts by comparing it with the records and examined the above facts, the above evidence Nos. 4-3 (No. 8-4 of the evidence No. 8-4 of the evidence No. 4 of the evidence No. 4 of the evidence No. 4-2 of the above evidence No. 4-2 of the above evidence No. 4-2 of the non-party No. 4 of the evidence No. 4-9 (the evidence No. 8-7 of the same evidence No. 8 of the above evidence No. 4) was submitted to the tax official's investigation by the non-party No. 5 of the evidence No. 4 of the above non-party No. 1 of the evidence No. 4 of the above evidence No. 4-2 of the evidence No. 6 of the non-party No. 4 of the above evidence No. 7 of the non-party No. 4 of the above investigation by the non-party No. 1 of the plaintiff No. 4 of the above statement No. 7 of the above fact No. 1 of the plaintiff No. 6 of the plaintiff No.

According to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 through 8, a certified copy of the register of the transferred assets of this case, the transfer of ownership was completed under the plaintiff's name with respect to the transferred assets of this case, and thus, it can be recognized that the transfer of ownership was directly made under the name of the transferee, such as the above non-party 4, non-party 5, and non-party 6. However, in light of the shares in the forest ( Address 4, non-party 8 omitted) and the contents of the above No. 4-3,7, and9 of the above non-party 1, the person who actually transferred the forest land to the transferee is insufficient to recognize that the person who actually transferred the above forest land to the transferee is the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize this otherwise.

In addition, the document No. 4-5, No. 10, 11, and 12, which is written by the transferee of the four forest and field among the transferred assets of this case, including address 6, 9, 2, and 3 omitted) and submitted to the tax official, was not written as to who actually transferred the forest and field to them, and even among other evidence cited by the court below, there was no evidence that the actual transferor of the forest and field is the plaintiff.

Therefore, the court below should have reviewed the following facts: (a) each of the above documentary evidence Nos. 4-3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 was prepared as a witness by examining the persons who prepared the above documentary evidence Nos. 4-4-2, and (b) each of the above documentary evidence Nos. 4-3, 7, and 9; and (c) then it should have determined the identity of the person who transferred the transferred asset of this case to the transferee; (b) however, although the court below should have determined the identity of the person who actually transferred the transferred the transferred asset of this case to the transferee of this case, the court below held that only the above documentary evidence, including the documentary evidence stating the facts that the person who transferred the transferred the transferred asset of this case is the plaintiff and the transferee of this case, who is not the above non-party Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, it can be found that the court below violated the rules of evidence or did not have any errors.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the plaintiff transferred the transferred asset of this case to anyone among the above non-party 1 and the transferee, and the plaintiff's transfer of the transferred asset of this case to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)