In the case of a transaction under Article 170 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), and Article 72 (3) 5 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of the same Act), whether the transferor may request the calculation of gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price by submitting materials verifying the actual transaction price until the closing of the pleadings seeking revocation or nullification of the taxation disposition, even though the transferor fails to meet the requirements under Article 170 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (affirmative)

Article 170 (4) 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) does not limit the submission period of evidentiary documents or the subject to which the provision can be invoked, which can confirm the actual transaction price under the law. Each of the above subparagraphs is independently and independently prescribed, and thus the transferor does not meet the requirements under subparagraph 3, and thus the application of subparagraph 1 and 2 of the above subparagraph is not naturally excluded. In case of subparagraph 2 of the above Article, although the legislative purpose is deemed to restrain the speculative transaction of real estate, it shall be interpreted that the legislative purpose is to restrain the speculative transaction, but it is reasonable to view the actual transaction price under Article 72 (3) 5 of the former Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax (National Tax Service Directive No. 980) as one of the transactions designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the control of speculative transaction, even if the transferor fails to meet the requirements for the actual transaction price to be determined within one year from the date of taxation without the principle.

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 170(4)2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), Article 72(3)5 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (National Tax Service Directive No. 980)

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3997 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 2313) 91Nu9190 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1992, 1061) 91Nu10848 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1913)

Plaintiff

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu17537 delivered on March 26, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff's acquisition value of the real estate of this case is 162,00,000 won and its actual transfer value is 165,00,000 won and its actual transfer value is 3,00,000 won and its actual transfer value is 3,00,000 won and its actual transfer value is 3,00,000 won and its transfer value is 1,00,00 won and its transfer value is 198.7.12, 1989. The plaintiff did not make the transfer profit or the final return of the real estate within the period stipulated in Articles 95 and 100 of the Income Tax Act after the above transfer and the defendant did not make the final return of the real estate within the period stipulated in Article 95 and 100 of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the court below found that the defendant calculated the transfer profit based on the standard market price as above at the time of transfer or the final return of the real estate within 304.154.1.

2. According to the records, the plaintiff asserted that the transfer margin should be calculated based on the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and acquisition of the real estate in this case on the ground that it was transferred within one year from the date of acquisition within one year from the date of acquisition pursuant to the provisions of Article 170 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply). The court below held that the disposition of this case, which calculated the transfer margin of the real estate in this case based on the standard market price on the ground that the plaintiff did not submit evidential documents within the period stipulated in Article 170 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, is legitimate, and the transferor who did not submit evidential documents within the period stipulated in Article 170 (4) 3 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as well as the transferor cannot claim that the transfer margin should be calculated based on

However, Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act provide that the acquisition value and transfer value of assets shall be based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition and transfer of assets, if determined by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 170(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that those cases shall be based on the above actual transaction price under subparagraphs 1 through 3 of the same Article. Two subparagraphs 1 and 2 do not limit the deadline for submission of evidentiary documents which can verify the actual transaction price under the law or the subject of recourse to the provisions under subparagraphs 3 and 2 of the above Article, because each of the above subparagraphs is independently defined, the transferor fails to meet the requirements under subparagraph 3, and thus does not automatically exclude the application of the provisions under subparagraph 1(b)2 of the above Article from the date of application of the above Article 45(1)2, and in case of double subparagraph 2 of the same Article, the purpose of legislation is to prevent real estate speculation transactions, but it can be interpreted that the taxpayer is objectively transferred within 7 years from the date of taxation under Article 97(30.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition and transfer of the real estate in this case can be confirmed based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff with respect to the transaction of the real estate in this case under Article 72 (3) 5 of the above provision, but the court below did not reach this point, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the above provisions, which led to the failure of the deliberation or omission of the judgment,

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.