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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the Income Tax Act provides that where the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition is not verifiable in cases where the acquisition value, which is one of the necessary expenses deduction from the transfer value, is to be “actual transaction value” in calculating transfer margin, the transaction example value, appraisal value or conversion value prescribed by Presidential Decree, and Article 163 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “where the transfer value or acquisition value is determined or corrected by estimation pursuant to Article 114 (7) of the Act, it shall be limited to the value calculated by applying the following methods in sequence, and where the appraisal value or acquisition value is determined or corrected by estimation, it shall be limited to the value determined by applying the following methods within three months before or after the date of acquisition, and Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24) provides that the appraisal value shall be determined within three months before or after the date:

In calculating gains on transfer, the actual transaction price is not a general market price that reflects the objective exchange value, but an actual agreed amount for the payment itself or at the time of transaction.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the text, purport, etc. of the aforementioned provisions, the transaction example value, appraisal value, and conversion value, which are not the original actual transaction value, shall be determined based on the transaction example value, appraisal value, and conversion value.