In case where the actual transaction price under Article 170 (4) 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977 of December 31, 1982) is confirmed after the end of the period of final return on tax base, the calculation basis of transfer

Examining the contents of Article 170(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977, Dec. 31, 1982), even if it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2, subparagraph 3 can calculate gains on transfer by documentary evidence submitted by the time the final return on tax base is filed. Thus, in the case of subparagraphs 1 and 2, even if the actual transaction value is confirmed at the expiration of the tax base return period, gains on transfer may be calculated based on the actual transaction

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982); Article 170(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1159 delivered on May 13, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are also examined.

1. According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576, Dec. 21, 1982); in principle, the transfer and acquisition value forming the basis for gains on transfer of assets shall be based on the standard market price: Provided, That only in exceptional cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be based on the actual market price; accordingly, Article 170(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977, Dec. 31, 1982) is exceptionally based on the actual market price.

Examining the contents of Article 170(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, even if it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2, it is evident that, in case where the actual transaction value can be confirmed by documentary evidence submitted by the time the final return on the tax base is submitted, transfer margin can be calculated based on the actual transaction value. Thus, in case of actual transaction value under subparagraphs 1 and 2, even if the actual transaction value is confirmed after the expiration of the period for the final return on tax base, it is no longer reasonable to conclude that transfer margin can be calculated based on

In the case of subparagraph 2 of the above, if the actual transaction price is confirmed after the expiration of the period of the final return on the tax base, it cannot be employed as a result of a single theory, or only a single theory. In the case of the above subparagraph 3, the precedent of the lawsuit is related to the case of subparagraph 3, and therefore, it is groundless

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land transaction of this case by the plaintiff was necessary for suppressing real estate speculation under Article 170 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and maintained the defendant's disposition that calculated gains from transfer based on the actual transaction price as the land transaction of this case constitutes transaction pointing out by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is just and there is no error in law. The provisions of Article 72 (3) of the Regulations on the Handling of Property Tax (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 888 of October 4, 1982) of the above Article 23 (4) and Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act and Article 170 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as delegated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as it is necessary for suppressing real estate speculation, and therefore, the court below's decision maintaining the defendant's disposition under the above disposal provision is just and there is no

3. 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 Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)