Whether Article 170 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) can be applied where it is deemed that the evidentiary documents submitted by a land transferor at the time of preliminary return of transfer margin are not reliable (negative)

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576, Dec. 21, 1982; Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990) provide that the transfer value and the acquisition value shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition of the assets in principle. However, only in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, the actual transaction price shall be based on the actual transaction price. Accordingly, Article 170(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977, Aug. 1, 1989; Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989) provides that the actual transaction price can be confirmed by both the acquisition value and the transfer value based on the documentary evidence submitted by the transferor at the time of the preliminary return or final return on the tax base. Thus, if it is acknowledged that the transfer price cannot be determined based on the standard market price at the time of transfer price.

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 170(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff’s Attorney Noh Jae-il

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu22679 delivered on August 22, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by December 21, 1982) provide that the transfer value and acquisition value shall be based on the standard market price at the time of the transfer and acquisition of the assets in principle. However, only in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, the actual transaction price shall be based on the actual transaction price. Accordingly, Article 170(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by December 31, 1982) provides that the case where the transferr can verify both the transfer value and the transfer value based on documentary evidence submitted at the time of the preliminary return of transfer margin or the final return of tax base is one of the exceptional cases where the transferr can confirm the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition and transfer because the documentary evidence submitted by the transferor at the time of the above report is not reliable, the provisions of subparagraph 3 of the same Article cannot be applied and it cannot be calculated based on the standard market price (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2666, Aug. 28, 1990).

According to the records, the court below recognized that the entries of the sales contract, etc. submitted by the plaintiff as documentary evidence of the actual transaction price in the final return of the tax base on the transfer margin of the land of this case are not reliable, and thus, it is not possible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer. The court below held that the tax disposition of this case, which the defendant calculated the transfer margin of the land of this case based on the standard market price, is legitimate. The above recognition and judgment of the court below are just. There is no error of law by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of imposition of national taxes or the decision of transfer margin, such as substantial taxation, and the precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit are entirely different from the case of this case, and therefore it is not appropriate to

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)