[1] Where the distinction between the sale price of land and buildings is unclear by selling them en bloc, the method of determining the sale price of such land and buildings (=calculated method by the standard market price)

[2] The case holding that the assessment standard of global income tax is erroneous on the premise that the amount calculated by calculating the amount calculated by deducting the appraised value of the land from the total selling value without reasonable grounds at the rate of the standard market price of local tax on the whole building is the sale price of the building with the consent, where it is unclear that the sale price of the land and the building with consent is the

[1] In calculating the tax base in order to conduct global income detailed and disposal, the total sales price of land and buildings can be known, but in cases where the sale price of land and buildings are not divided into the sale price of land and buildings, it shall be reasonable to calculate the tax base in proportion to the value based on the standard market price of land and buildings, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the ratio is not remarkably unreasonable, in view of the fact that the tax authority was out of the company's gross income and paid the amount of income under Article 94-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 1998).

[2] The case holding that the assessment standard of global income tax is erroneous on the premise that the amount calculated by calculating the amount calculated by deducting the appraised value of the land from the total selling value without reasonable grounds at the rate of the standard market value of the entire building at the local tax rate is the sale value of the building, where it is unclear that the sale price of the land and the building with consent is the sale price

[1] Articles 32(5), 59-2(5) and (7) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 94-2(1)1 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 124-5(3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 32(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 59-2(1)1 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 199; see current Article 106(1)1 (d) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 197(1) and (2) of the former Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Du10274 decided Apr. 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1284)

Plaintiff

The director of Gwangju Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 2000Nu1279 delivered on September 20, 200

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the land and buildings listed in paragraphs 1 through 5 among the real estate listed in the separate list of the first instance court judgment (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") were owned by a limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "tax 10") and the building listed in paragraph 6 (hereinafter referred to as "the whole building of this case") were owned by the non-party, who is the representative director of the building of this case and the non-party, owned 1/2 shares of each of the total 30 shares of the real estate of this case and the total 1,050,000,000 won of the above real estate of this case, and the total 1,00,000 won of the above 30,000,000 won of the above real estate of this case, which were calculated on November 4, 1995 under the premise that the tax base of the plaintiff of this case was sold to the Young Credit Union of this case, 36,586,986.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

The court below is just in holding that since the sales contract for each real estate of this case does not distinguish the value of the entire building of this case and the remaining part of the land and only the total sale price are stated, it shall not be deemed a case where the division of the sale price of the whole building of this case and the remaining part of the land is clear, and it shall not be deemed that there is any error of law that misleads the facts against the rules of evidence.

However, the court below cannot accept the method of separating the sale price of the building of this case from the total sale price of each real estate of this case for the following reasons.

In calculating the tax base in order to conduct global income and disposition as well as global income, the total sales price of land and buildings can be known in cases where the sales price of the land and buildings are not clearly unreasonable, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the ratio is considerably unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du10274 delivered on April 26, 2002).

Therefore, in a case where the distinction between the sale price of the entire building of this case and the remaining part of each of the real estate of this case is unclear by selling each of the real estate of this case, it is reasonable to determine the sale price of the building of this case by the method of calculating the market price of the land and the building in proportion to the value calculated according to the standard market

Nevertheless, the court below calculated global income tax base on the premise that KRW 320,736,377, which is calculated by deducting the appraised value of each of the instant real estate from the total selling price of each of the instant real estate at KRW 1,050,00,00,00, which is the total selling price of each of the instant real estate without reasonable grounds, is the selling price of the instant building, under the premise that the amount calculated by calculating the appraised value of each of the instant real estate at the rate of the standard market price of local tax assessment of the instant entire building at the same time is the selling price of the instant building without reasonable grounds, it is deemed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the classification

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)