Where any one of the acquisition values and transfer values under the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) is a transaction value with a corporation, the method of calculating transfer margin.

Article 170 (1) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) at the time of enforcement, in principle, the transfer value and acquisition value determined on capital gains shall be based on the standard market price. However, in a transaction with the State, a local government, or other corporations where the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed, if the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed, other than a transaction with a corporation, the transfer margin shall be determined on the basis of the actual transaction price if it is confirmed by a report or inquiry, etc., and only if it is not confirmed, the transaction price between the corporation and the

Articles 23 and 45 of the Income Tax Act; Article 170 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu752 delivered on February 24, 1987 (Gong1987,579) 87Nu767 delivered on April 11, 1989 (Gong1989,760) 90Nu2642 delivered on June 12, 1990 (Dong)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na11484 decided May 1, 200

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu4668 delivered on February 7, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the Songnam-si, and the Bahee acquired the land of this case from the non-party 1 on March 25, 1985 only in original form from the non-party 1 to the plaintiff 804,750,000 won. The court below was just in examining the process of the cooking the evidence which was conducted in recognizing the above facts, and there was no violation of the rules

2. At the time of enforcement of Article 170 (1) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) and Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Apr. 11, 1989), in principle, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be based on the standard market price. However, in case where the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed in transactions with the State, a local government or other corporation, other than the corporation, if the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed by the method of report or examination, etc., it is the opinion of party members to interpret that a transaction partner with the corporation shall determine transfer margin based on the actual transaction price (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu752, Feb. 24, 1

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the acquisition price of the land of this case should be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price, and there is no error of law such as a theory of lawsuit

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Yoon In-tae (Presiding Justice)