A. Whether the submission of documents that can prove that the inherited property is inherited can be viewed as a submission of evidentiary materials that can verify the real acquisition value of inherited property (negative)

(b) Transfer margin where the transfer margin calculated by the standard market price exceeds the actual transfer value (=actual transfer value).

A. The actual transaction price required for acquiring inherited property refers to the normal price at the time of acquisition, and refers to the market price, actual transaction price, appraisal price, etc., so in the case of inherited property, evidence can be deemed to have been submitted to verify the actual acquisition price that can verify the normal price, such as the market price at the time of inheritance. The submission of documents proving that the inherited property is a family register copy, resident registration copy, etc. cannot be deemed to have been submitted to verify the actual acquisition price.

B. In calculating the acquisition value and the transfer value in order to impose the transfer income tax, even if one of them is unclear and calculated based on the standard market price, the transfer margin after deducting the acquisition value from the standard market price in light of the substance over form principle under Article 14 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 7 (2) of the Income Tax Act shall not exceed the scope of the value actually transferred.

A. Article 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982); Articles 94(1) and 86(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982); Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 7(2) of the Income Tax Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu457 delivered on September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1751) 87Nu483,484 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988, 359) 92Nu1886 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong192, 3165)

Plaintiff Kim Dong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu2778 delivered on September 18, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

1. On November 1, 1989, the court below recognized that the real estate of this case, which the plaintiff jointly acquired by inheritance, was sold to the non-party 1,50 million won, without filing a preliminary return on the asset transfer marginal profit under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act, and filed a final return on the tax base under Article 100 of the Income Tax Act on May 1, 1990, with the purchaser's name, the transfer value is KRW 1,50 million, which is the actual transaction price, along with the purchaser's certificate of transaction and the certificate of the personal seal impression, and the Plaintiff's family register copy and the resident registration certificate can be attached to the evidence to verify the acquisition value, and reported as KRW 70,897,968, the market price at the time of inheritance at the time of the inheritance. The defendant supported measures to determine the transfer value and the acquisition value of the real estate of this case by the standard market price.

According to Articles 23(4), 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), and Articles 94(1)1 and 86(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982), the actual transaction price required to acquire inherited property refers to the normal price as at the time of acquisition, and it is reasonable to say that the normal price is the market price, transaction practice price, appraisal price, etc., and that the normal price is the market price, transaction practice price, market price, appraisal price, etc., so in the case of inherited property, it can be deemed that there is a submission of documentary evidence verifying the actual acquisition price, such as the market price at the time of inheritance. Accordingly, the court below’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

2. In the case of calculating the acquisition value and the transfer value in order to impose the transfer income tax, one of them is unclear, and in view of the substance over form principle as stipulated in Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 7(2) of the Income Tax Act, the party members’ opinion that the amount obtained by deducting the acquisition value from the transfer value based on the standard market price, i.e., the amount obtained by deducting the acquisition value from the transfer value based on the standard market price, i.e., the scope of the actual transfer value (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu106, Feb. 14, 1984; 84Nu457, Sep. 25, 1984; 87Nu483,484, Dec. 22, 1987).

Therefore, the lower court’s determination that the instant taxation, which calculated transfer margin within the scope of the real transfer value, is legitimate on the ground that the transfer margin of the instant real estate calculated based on the standard market price exceeds the real transfer value, is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as alleged by the Plaintiff. It is without merit

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 Young-young (Presiding Justice)