Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 9698 of Dec. 31, 1979) means "not having a rate of multiple factors with respect to a specific area at the time of acquisition".

Article 115(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was amended on December 31, 1979 and enforced on January 1, 1980, is interpreted as a provision applicable to a case where the transferred asset is located in a specific area at the time of its acquisition, but it is interpreted as a provision applicable to a case where the ratio was not determined. Therefore, the newly established provision and there is no ground to change the portion that the transferred asset should be located in the specific area at the time of its acquisition among the interpretation of the ratio method and the applicable requirements under Article 115(1)1(a) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree.

【Binding Force Judgment: Judgment on October 14, 86, 85Nu722, modified by this Court Decision】

Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9698, Dec. 31, 1979)

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu722 delivered on October 14, 1986 (Discarding)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Yeongdeungpo-do Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu383 delivered on July 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 60 of the Income Tax Act at the time of its acquisition shall be delegated to determine the standard market price as provided for in Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the same Act under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Based on this provision, Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the value assessed by the rate method shall be the standard market price for a specific area determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service with respect to land and buildings, and in other areas, the standard market price under the Local Tax Act shall be the standard market price. (See subparagraph 1 (a) and (b) (former part) of paragraph (2) of the same Article, the rate shall be calculated under the Local Tax Act at the time of its transfer (in the case of the proviso of paragraph (1) 1 (b), the rate shall be calculated under the above provision, and it shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the land and building, the price of which is similar to that of the transferred property at each specific area by 19.381.681.

Therefore, the opinion that the member states that there is no multiple factor in the specific area at the time of acquisition as referred to in Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act shall be included in the case where there is no specific area at the time of acquisition and there is no fixed multiple factor. The opinion that the 85Nu722 delivered on October 4, 1986 should be changed by this judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below held that since Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that since the plaintiff's transfer real estate was effective after January 1, 1980, the defendant's taxation is unlawful on the ground that it cannot determine the standard market price at the time of its acquisition by applying this provision, its reasoning is justifiable. However, according to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the plaintiff's acquisition of the transfer real estate in this case is legitimate, but since it is obvious that the area was publicly announced as a specific area on September 6, 1983 that the transfer real estate was not located within the specific area at the time of its acquisition, it cannot be determined by applying the same provision even if the time of the transfer of the above real estate belongs to the transfer real estate after the enforcement of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the decision of the court below that the acquisition price cannot be determined by applying the above provision in this case, and it cannot be determined within the acquisition price at the time of its acquisition by applying the above provision to the specific area.

3. 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 judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)