(a) Methods for calculating gains on transfer under the Income Tax Act;

B. Whether the head of Seoul Regional Tax Office's standard market price of the right to acquire real estate can be seen as the right to acquire real estate, which investigated the presses of each apartment house around April 1985 (negative)

A. According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), and Article 170(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982), where assets are transferred, the calculation of gains from transfer shall be based on the standard market price. In principle, when evidential documents are submitted to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of the preliminary return on transfer of assets or the final return on tax base, the gains from transfer shall be calculated based on the actual transfer and acquisition price, or if there is no such report or evidentiary documents are submitted, the gains from transfer shall be calculated based on the standard market price.

B. Under Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, the standard market price of the right to acquire real estate refers to the value assessed by the method determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in consideration of the type, size, sale price, and acquisition of transferred asset, and the sale price at the time of transfer pursuant to Article 115 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 56-5 (10) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the value table surveyed by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office around April 1985, cannot be deemed as the standard market price under

Articles 23(4), 45(1), and 60 of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 3576, Dec. 21, 1982); Articles 170(4) and 115(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977, Dec. 31, 1982); Article 56-5(10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu86 delivered on October 14, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu287 delivered on February 10, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2113 delivered on February 14, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu332 delivered on November 26, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu847 delivered on March 11, 1986

Plaintiff

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu690 delivered on February 2, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), and Article 170(4)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982), where assets are transferred, the calculation of gains on transfer should be based on the standard market price in principle. If evidential documents are submitted to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of the preliminary return of gains on transfer or the final return of assets, the calculation of gains on transfer should be based on the actual transfer and acquisition price, or if no such report is submitted or evidentiary documents are submitted, gains on transfer should be calculated based on the standard market price (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu287, Feb. 10, 1987).

According to the records, in the event that the plaintiff applied for the sale of the apartment of this case under the condition that he purchased the national housing bond 3,590,000 won and won for the purchase of the above bonds, and thereafter the plaintiff paid the down payment 10,280,000 won with the purchase of the above bonds, and the transfer of the above apartment lottery tickets to the non-party as the financial situation has paid the down payment of 3,590,000 won, the sum of the above down payment paid and the above bond purchase amount of 50,000 won, and thereafter transferred it, the fact that the above non-party paid the part payment once after the payment, and that the plaintiff had the above buyer changed the name of the apartment purchaser from the plaintiff in his own name, and that the plaintiff did not make the preliminary return of the asset transfer marginal profit or the final return on tax base, it is justifiable to determine that the transfer marginal profit should be calculated in accordance with the standard market price under Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act.

In addition, pursuant to Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, the standard market price of the right to acquire real estate refers to the value assessed by the method determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in consideration of the type, size, sale price and acquisition of transferred property, and the actual sale price at the time of transfer pursuant to Article 115 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 56-5 (10) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and subparagraph 2 (value Table) of Article 2 (value Table) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is merely the value assessed by apartment in April 1985 by the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and it cannot be deemed as the standard market price under the above Act, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the standard market price of the apartment winning right of this case is determined as the illegal disposal, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as pointed out. The argument is groundless.

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 Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)