Whether the cost incurred in purchasing an apartment unit sold by the bond bid system is included in the cost for acquisition (affirmative)

In the case of an apartment lot sold by the bond bid system, the purchase of the bond is essential for the apartment lot, and the expenses paid for the purchase of the bond is included in the cost for acquisition of the apartment lot as price actually used to acquire the above apartment lot along with the sale price.

Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act, Article 86 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 94 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu254 delivered on October 22, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu765 delivered on December 24, 1985

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu273 delivered on July 26, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

According to Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act and Article 94 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the actual transaction price required to acquire the relevant asset, which is necessary expenses for calculating gains on transfer in the transfer income tax, shall be calculated at an amount equivalent to the cost for acquisition computed by applying mutatis mutandis Article 86 (1) 1 of the same Decree. Article 86 (1) 1 of the same Decree provides that the purchase assets shall be the price at the time of purchase (including registration tax, acquisition tax and other expenses incidental thereto). Thus, in the event an apartment unit sold through a bond bid system as in this case is acquired through the apartment lot, the purchase of the claim is essential for the apartment lot, and it is reasonable to interpret that the expenses disbursed for the purchase of the house bond is included in the cost for acquisition of the above apartment lot along with the sale price (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu254 delivered on October 22, 1985). In addition, the Plaintiff purchased the above house bond at a face value 6,050, and sale price of the above bonds.

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the apartment house of this case by adding up 6,050,000 won of housing bonds paid by the plaintiff at the time of the sale of the apartment of this case to the sale price, and that the sale of the apartment bonds of this case did not incur transfer margin due to the sale of the apartment house of this case, and it is not reasonable in holding that there

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)