Whether the expenses incurred in purchasing the bonds are included in the cost of acquisition, in case of winning the apartment for the bonds sold in lots;

According to Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act, Article 94 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 86 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in the case of winning an apartment for the apartment for the sale of bonds, the purchase of the bonds shall be deemed an essential expense for the winning. Therefore, the bond purchase cost shall be included in the cost for the acquisition of the apartment along with the purchase

Article 45(1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 86(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 94(1)1 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu853 Decided January 21, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu399 delivered on January 27, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, recognized the fact that the plaintiff subscribed to 4,00,000 won housing subscription deposit in the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank and sold 16,50,000 won in aggregate of the above amount of housing claim amount to 16,50,000 won on December 15, 1983, under the condition that 44,000 won of housing bond amount is purchased and sold by the non-party 1, which is newly constructed and sold by the non-party 1, 1983 by the non-party 1, 1983, the non-party 1,000 won of housing bond amount, and the court below applied for the sale of 4,100,000 won to the non-party 29, Dec. 29, 1983 under the condition that the non-party 1,50,000 won was selected and sold on the same day. In light of the records, the court below's fact finding is just and there is no error

According to Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act and Article 94 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of the relevant asset, which is necessary expenses for calculating gains on transfer of capital gains, shall be calculated at the price corresponding to the cost for acquisition computed by applying mutatis mutandis Article 86 (1) of the same Decree. Article 86 (1) 1 of the same Decree provides that the purchased asset shall be the acquisition price at the time of purchase (including registration tax and acquisition tax and other incidental expenses). Thus, according to the purport of the above provision, in a case where the purchase of bonds is required to respond to the apartment sale, and the winning purchase of bonds is determined depending on the difference in the amount, and the winning acquisition of the bonds is naturally necessary for the winning purchase of the bonds. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the purchase cost of bonds is included in the cost for acquisition along with the sale price in substance, and if the purchased bonds are transferred and received at the same time, it shall be deducted from the calculation of gains on transfer.

From the same view, the judgment below that did not regard the difference between the market price and par value of bonds as separate transfer proceeds or transfer marginal profits is justifiable and there is no reason to argue that it is erroneous.

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

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)