A. Whether the proviso of Article 170(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (before amended on December 31, 1982) is valid

(b) Method of calculating gains on transfer where one of the transfer values and acquisition values is obscure;

A. Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by December 31, 1982) provides that "where calculating gains on transfer according to the actual transaction price pursuant to Article 170 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if it is impossible to investigate either the transfer price or the actual transaction price, the value converted according to the method determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall be deemed the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition" is not consistent with the provisions of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by December 21, 1982), and it is null and void because there is no ground for delegation under the Income Tax Act.

B. Even if the acquisition value of the transferred real estate cannot be examined because only the acquisition value is unclear among the transfer value and transfer value, the transfer value shall be the actual transaction value in making a tax disposition following the transfer of the same real estate, and the acquisition value shall be the so-called land price index conversion value under the proviso of Article 170(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by December 21, 1982), and the transfer margin is unlawful in calculating the transfer margin. Ultimately, the transfer margin is reasonable in calculating both the transfer value and the transfer value according to the main sentence of Article 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

(a) Articles 23(4) and 45(1)(b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by December 21, 1982); Article 170(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by December 31, 1982);

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu221 delivered on November 23, 1982, 83Nu151 delivered on July 26, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu439 delivered on December 1, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The proviso of Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1982, Dec. 31, 1982; 82Nu221, Nov. 23, 1982; 83Nu151, Jul. 26, 1983; 83Nu151, Jul. 26, 1983; 83Nu151, Jan. 26, 1983) provides that "where calculating gains on transfer pursuant to the actual transaction price under the provisions of Article 170 (3) of the same Enforcement Decree, if it is impossible to investigate either the transfer price or the actual transaction price, the price converted by the method determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall be deemed the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition," is not consistent with the provisions of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1982, Dec. 21, 197). 197).

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 Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)