[1] The case holding that in case where the appraisal value of a certified public appraiser invoked by the tax authority was omitted in calculating the acquisition value of assets at the normal price at the time of acquisition pursuant to Article 37 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the market price cannot be calculated by partly modifying the appraisal value

[2] In a case where it is difficult to calculate the acquisition price of assets at the normal price at the time of acquisition pursuant to Article 37(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, whether the value should be appraised pursuant to Article 5(2)1(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act by analogy applying Article 16-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (affirmative)

[3] In a case where the officially assessed individual land price for the pertinent year was publicly announced after the donation, a supplementary assessment method for the value of the land which is a donated property property, whether the price is assessed based on the publicly assessed individual land price (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that the appraisal price cannot be calculated by modifying part of the appraisal price on the ground that it is difficult for the tax authority to calculate the range of expenses to be deducted from the price due to omitted appraisal factors, on the ground that there are facilities, etc. to be removed on land, which should be assessed by the tax authority in accordance with Article 17 (2) and (4) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998) and Article 37 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998).

[2] In case where it is difficult to calculate the acquisition price of assets at the normal price at the time of acquisition pursuant to Article 37 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998), the provision of Article 16-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 622 of Mar. 29, 1997) shall apply by analogy Article 5 (2) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15193 of Dec. 31, 1996).

[3] The officially announced land price is to be determined on the basis of the officially announced land price of the standard land. The officially announced land price or the officially announced land price is to be determined on the basis of the officially announced land price of the standard land. If the price of land, which is a donated property, is to be determined on the basis of the supplementary assessment method, the officially announced land price of the relevant year, even though the officially announced land price of the relevant year was publicly announced on January 1 of the corresponding year only after the donation, when the officially announced land price of the relevant year was not publicly announced on the basic date after the donation, in light of the market principle on the appraisal of donated property adopted by Article 9 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 196) in light of the market value principle on the appraisal of donated property adopted by Article 9 of the same Act

[1] Article 17(2) and (4) (see current Article 40(1) and (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581, Dec. 28, 1998); Article 37(1)3 (see current Article 72(1)5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998); Article 16-2 (see current Article 89) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 622, Mar. 29, 1997) / [2] Article 17(2) and (4) (see current Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581, Dec. 28, 1998); Article 97(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 972, Mar. 16, 197, 1997)

[3] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2653 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1303), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16925 delivered on December 7, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 386), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu411 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2917), Supreme Court Decision 98Du2669 delivered on October 26, 199 (Gong199Ha, 245)

Pu Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jong-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 98Nu1697 delivered on September 25, 1998

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on May 29, 195, the court below found that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party 1 on May 31, 1995 to receive the share of the land of this case with the non-party 1 as gift for the non-party 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff on September 4, 1995. The defendant decided that the non-party 2 assessed the market price of the land of this case as of June 15, 1995 by the non-party 33,00 won per square meter of the market price of this case on the ground that the non-party 2 was requested to appraisera Housing Co., Ltd. to appraise the market price of this case on the ground that the land of this case was assessed as 33,000 won per square meter of the market price as of June 15, 1995. The land of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful since the defendant's new land price of this case was assessed as to the non-party 2.

2. Where the acquisition value of assets is calculated at the normal price at the time of acquisition pursuant to Article 17(2) and (4) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4804, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 37(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14468, Dec. 31, 1994); and Article 37(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 159970, Dec. 31, 1998); although there were facilities to be removed on the instant land, it is difficult to view the appraisal value of Nonparty 2’s appraiser’s appraiser’s used by the Defendant as new construction of new apartment, and thus, it is difficult to view the appraisal value as an objective and reasonable method, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s appraisal value to be reduced or decreased by omitting the scope of expenses to be deducted from the appraisal.

Therefore, it is impossible to calculate the market price of the land of this case by partially modifying the appraisal value based on the appraisal value of this case, and there is no other evidence to regard it as the market price in the records. Thus, in the end, it is difficult to calculate the market price, and there is no other evidence to regard it as the market price, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion in the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, by analogical application of Article 16-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 622 of March 29, 197).

3. The officially assessed individual land price is to be determined on the basis of the officially assessed price of the reference land as of the basic date, and the officially assessed individual land price is to be determined on the basis of the officially assessed price of the reference land. The officially assessed individual land price or the officially assessed individual land price is to be effective on the basic date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu2653, Mar. 23, 1993; 93Nu16925, Dec. 7, 1993; 93Nu16925, Dec. 7, 1993). In a case where the officially assessed individual land price for the pertinent year was determined on the basis of the publicly announced individual land price, which is a supplementary assessment method of the value of the reference land, was to be determined on the basis of the publicly announced individual land price for the pertinent year after the donation was not publicly announced on the basic date after January 1 of the pertinent year, 196.

According to the records, since the officially assessed individual land price in June 30, 1995 was publicly announced as KRW 400,000 per square meter in 195 with respect to the land of this case, even if the acquisition time of the land of this case is the donation contract date on May 29, 1995, the value of the land of this case should be assessed according to the officially assessed individual land price in 1995 in accordance with the above legal principles, and as long as the officially assessed individual land price exceeds KRW 33,00 per square meter in 195, the assessed individual land price in this case's 33,000 per square meter, which is the appraised land price based on the disposition of this case's taxation, there is a probability that the actual tax base or tax amount will not exceed the reasonable tax base or tax amount, the court below's decision that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the price of the land of this case should be based on the officially assessed individual land price in 19

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court 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 Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)