Cases of calculating gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price, considering that real estate is acquired after acquisition for the purpose of speculation.

If any balance after the purchase of real estate has already been resold 18 days in Flusium before the due date, and if gains from transfer, which has already been acquired more than 14 million won due to the resale, are intended to resell the real estate in a state of non-registration, and even if the purchaser has already completed a transfer registration in his/her future and then transferred the buyer's registration in the future, it cannot be deemed to have been again purchased for speculative purposes, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have been the sale again. Therefore, the measure of calculating gains from transfer based on the actual transaction price is justifiable, not based on the standard market price pursuant to the proviso to Article 23 (4) of the Income Tax Act, the proviso to Article 45 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 72 (3) of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (No. 88 of Oct. 4, 1982).

The proviso of Article 23(4) of the Income Tax Act, the proviso of Article 45(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 72(3) of the Regulations on the Handling of Property Tax Investigation (National Tax Service Directive No. 888 of October 4, 1982

Plaintiff

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1127 delivered on April 25, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

1. According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, the transfer value and acquisition value shall, in principle, be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer or acquisition in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree. However, according to Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, one of the cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree is deemed necessary to restrain the speculation of real estate over a certain scale prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service according to the region and is designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition. Accordingly, Article 72(3) of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax, which is the instructions of the National Tax Service (the National Tax Service Directive No. 888, Oct. 4, 1982), provides that the transaction price shall be based on the actual transaction price at the time of each transfer or acquisition. Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the person who acquired or acquired real estate for the purpose of the investigation or disguised transaction is objectively verified through a false transaction (3).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on September 13, 1983, the plaintiff purchased approximately 78 square meters from the non-party 1 in Seongdong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), 56,500,000 won for purchase price, and the remaining payment date on October 22 of the same year, and then again sold this land to the non-party 2 on October 1 of the same year as price 71,000 won, and November 10 of the same year on the date of the balance receipt. The plaintiff purchased the land in this case and attempted to resell it to the non-party 2 without the seller's consent, and did not transfer the registration name in his own future and transferred the registration name to the purchaser, and the decision of the court below is justified in light of the legal principles as seen above, and it is not justified in the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff did not acquire the real estate in this case under the proviso of Article 14 of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of calculating 18 days in a short period of 18 days,5000 million won or the market price.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)