A. Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act at the time of the amendment by the Presidential Decree No. 12509 of August 25, 198 and Article 15(3) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree to the same Enforcement Decree

(b) the burden of proving that the evidence of the seal of approval agreement has been prepared differently from the actual evidence.

A. Even if, at the time of the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 12509 on August 25, 198, the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509, Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act), the revised Ordinance does not constitute one house for one household, except where the pertinent house is disposed of within six months from the date of the promulgation of the above amended Ordinance and the ownership transfer registration is completed, except where the ownership transfer registration is completed, the revised Ordinance does not constitute one house for one household, which is applied from the first transfer after the promulgation of the amended Ordinance.

B. The stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and approved by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu must be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the contract, barring special circumstances, and the claimant must prove that the contract was prepared differently from the actual one.

A. Article 5 of the Income Tax Act; Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509, Aug. 25, 198); Article 32 of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509, Aug. 25, 198); Article 40(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act; Articles 187 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu19604 delivered on May 29, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff's acquisition of the apartment of this case on November 29, 1985 and resided for one year or more at the time of the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 12509 of Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as of August 25, 1988, and met the requirements of one house for one household subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax under the Act and subordinate statutes before the amendment, but it is legitimate to impose the defendant's taxation by judging that the amendment order does not constitute one house for one household after its promulgation, except in a case where the plaintiff disposes of the house concerned and completed the transfer registration of ownership within six months from the date of the promulgation of the above amendment, except in a case where he disposes of the house concerned and completed the transfer registration of ownership, the first transfer order shall be applied from the date of its promulgation.

The court below also judged that the approval seal contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and approved by the head of the Si/Gun shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, unless there are special circumstances, and that the contract was prepared differently from the actual transaction price, the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff does not prove it, and thus, the defendant's measures to calculate gains on transfer considering the sales price under the approval seal contract as the actual transaction price are justified. The above judgment of the court below is correct and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof, such as the theory of lawsuit, or incomplete deliberation

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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)