Where reserved land is designated between the date of actual acquisition and the date of fictitious acquisition, the area which is the basis for computing the acquisition price.

Even if the previous land prior to the designation of the land scheduled for substitution has been acquired, it shall not be calculated by the area of the previous land pursuant to Article 16 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1974 of Apr. 19, 1994), and thereafter by the area of the land scheduled for substitution or by the area of the land scheduled for substitution shall not be calculated by the area of the land scheduled for substitution or by the area of the land determined for substitution, in calculating the acquisition price, even if the previous land was designated as the land scheduled for substitution before the date of fictitious acquisition under Article 16 (1) 26 of the Addenda of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019

Article 16 of the Addenda of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 1988 among the Addenda of Act No. 2705 of Dec. 24, 1974); Article 16 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of Apr. 19, 1994)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5344 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2321)

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

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu25082 delivered on May 11, 1994

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

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff acquired 2,241 square meters prior to 1957. 31 December 31, 1957 (location 1 omitted). On July 16, 1971, a land readjustment project was conducted on the said land, which was designated as 1,632.4 square meters for the said land. On July 7, 1978, the division was completed and the replotting was determined on December 11, 1978, 62 square meters and 970.4 square meters for the land of this case (location 2 omitted) as at the time of acquisition of the above 197. 7. 6. 7. 7. 9 of the land of this case, the land of this case, which was designated as 197. 1. 7. 9 of the land of this case, the land of this case and the land of this case, which was located as 1973. 97. 7. 97. 97.

2. According to Article 16 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1974 of Apr. 19, 194), in calculating gains from transfer where the actual transaction price is unclear, where the previous landowner transfers land or land determined for replotting in the replotting district under the Land Substitution Projects Act, the calculation of gains from transfer shall be based on the formula of expected substitute price x ordinary price at the time of transfer x (the normal price at the time of acquisition x other necessary expenses). Thus, in cases where the previous land was acquired before the designation of land scheduled for replotting, even if the land was designated before the fictitious acquisition date under Article 16 of the Addenda of the Income Tax Act, and the acquisition price of the previous land should not be calculated by the area of the land scheduled for replotting or the area of the land determined for replotting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5344, Oct. 12, 199).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the land grade should be applied to the area of the reserved land for replotting after the replotting is finalized is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the transfer margin calculation and legal fiction of the time of acquisition such as the reserved land for replotting, which affected the conclusion of

3. Therefore, 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.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)