The criteria for calculating the market price of assets under Article 46 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

The "market price of assets" under Article 46 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act refers to the price of assets which is normally formed by ordinary transactions. Thus, only if such transaction price cannot be determined, the market price of a reliable appraisal institution or the government's current market price shall be determined based on the market price or the government's current market

Article 46 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu90 Decided April 13, 1982 83Nu392 Decided November 8, 1983

Attorney Han Han-chul, Inc., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1045 Decided January 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The “market price of assets” under Article 46(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act refers to the price of assets which is normally formed through ordinary transactions. Thus, only when the transaction price cannot be determined, the market price or the government’s standard market price shall be determined based on the reliable appraisal institution’s market price or the government’s market price (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu90, Apr. 13, 1982; 83Nu392, Nov. 8, 1983).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the amount of appraisal of the market price for collateral loan in order to obtain a bank loan based on evidence shall be assessed at a lower level than 80 percent of the market price of actual sale formed normally in order to facilitate recovery of the loan amount, and it is common to say that a sale contract for the land of this case between the plaintiff company and the non-party was concluded, and that the neighboring small-scale site was widely traded even at a price higher than that of the purchase price of the plaintiff company. In light of the above, the judgment below held that the defendant's disposition of the defendant, which is the object of avoidance of the actual purchase price of the plaintiff company, by considering the market price of each land of this case as the market price of this case as the market price of the land of this case, cannot be seen as accurately reflecting the market price of the land of this case. In light of the records, the fact finding and judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

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 Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)