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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the Income Tax Act, Articles 163 (12) and 176-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provide that when the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition cannot be confirmed in calculating the acquisition price which is the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer price, the conversion price shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the actual transaction price at the time of transfer by the standard market price at the time of transfer and the ratio of the standard market

Meanwhile, Article 99 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act provides that the standard market price of land shall be determined by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the officially assessed individual land price of neighboring similar land in the place of tax payment (hereinafter “individually assessed individual land price”). In such cases, the value of land for which no officially assessed individual land price exists shall be determined by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the officially assessed individual land price of neighboring similar land. Article 164 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant Enforcement Decree provision”) upon delegation from the said authority refers to the value assessed by the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment (the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the location of the land, if requested by the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment) on the basis of the comparison table under Article 9 (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, considering the price assessed by the head of the Si/Gun under the proviso to Article 4 (1) of the Local Tax Act or the appraisal agency for appraisal: