1. Where special surtax is not imposed pursuant to Article 59-3 (1) 17 of the Corporate Tax Act, whether there is a liability to pay the defense tax; and

2. Where the transferor of a real estate has no fixed rate applied at the time of acquiring such real estate, the method of calculating the transfer value and cancelled price.

1. In cases where the special surtax is not imposed on the income accruing from the transfer of land directly used for the proper purpose for a corporation established for the purpose of dissemination and edification of religion pursuant to Article 59-3 (1) 17 of the Corporate Tax Act, the liability for defense tax exists;

2. In order to constitute the basis for calculation of the transfer margin, the standard market price pursuant to Article 124-2(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1019, Dec. 31, 1980); Article 115(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978); and Article 115(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978), the real estate in question is located in a specific area and located in the area designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as a Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and at the time of cancellation; therefore, if

Article 59-3(1)17 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 2(1) and (2) of the Defense Tax Act; Article 4(2) of the Defense Tax Act; Article 115(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9698); Article 124-2(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9699)

The Foundation for the Maintenance of the Korean Foundation of the Korean Foundation;

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

1. The defendant's disposition of the tax amount of 215,481,843 won (the amount reverted to year 1979) and the amount of 8,748,360 won (the amount reverted to year 1980) against the plaintiff as of September 7, 1982, which exceeded 33,528,083 won (the amount reverted to year 1979) and 3,902,065 won (the amount reverted to year 1980) shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into five parts, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other, respectively by the defendant.

The defendant's disposition of imposition of 8,748,360 won and 215,481,843 won and 215,481,843 won against the plaintiff as of September 7, 1982 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

8. On April 8, 1983, the defendant filed a request for a trial on the same date with the above 30-day period from the National Tax Tribunal. Since the plaintiff's request for a trial on the above 1983. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 1, the plaintiff's request for a trial on the same date as the above 1. 2. 8. 8. 1, the defendant's request for a trial on the above 1. 2. 8. 1, the defendant's request for a correction by the same date as the above 1. 3. 8. 1, the plaintiff's request for a correction by the same date as the above 1. 4. 2. 1, the plaintiff's request for a correction by the same date as the above 1. 3. 1, the plaintiff's request for a correction by the same date as the above 9. 1, the plaintiff's request for a correction by the same date as the above 2. 9. 9. 1, the defendant's request for correction by the same date. 9. 9. 6. 2. . 3. 3.

2. Judgment on the merits

. The acquisition price of the above real estate shall be 0.1, 2, 12, 13 through 80, 14-1, 2, 14-1 through 80, 14-1 through 8, 15-1 through 7, 9-2, 9-1 through 97, 17-2, 9-1 through 40-7, 9-7, 17-1 through 9-7, 9-2, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-7, 9-1, 9-7, 10-7, 9-7, 19-7, 3-1, 4, and 9-7, 1,000-7, respectively.

Article 59-3 (1) 17 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the transfer income of the above land shall be treated as non-taxable income if the plaintiff transferred the above land and did not fulfill his duty to pay taxes, and thus, the plaintiff's claim that the above taxation disposition is justifiable (1) because the plaintiff's foundation disposes of the land, buildings, etc. necessary for the purpose of the business of a church, which is a religious organization, via the procedure of the articles of incorporation and the approval procedure of the director of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and thus, the income accrued from the transfer shall not be treated as non-taxable income. Thus, the income from the above transfer shall not be a taxpayer under Article 2 of the Defense Tax Act for the purpose of replacing the basic property with the due process of the articles of incorporation and the approval of the competent government office. (2) The plaintiff's allegation that the tax base of the above tax disposition was not imposed on the taxpayer under Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act until the tax disposition of this case was imposed on the taxpayer for the purpose of protecting and fostering the tax base of the above Article 16 (2).

(3) Regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion that real estate should be valued by the standard market price at the time of its acquisition. Article 59-2(3) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3270 of Dec. 13, 1980) provides that the transfer value shall be the amount obtained by subtracting the acquisition value from the transfer price at the time of its determination and the expenses as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. However, if the transfer price and acquisition price are unclear, it shall be determined by the standard market price at the time of its determination as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and the transfer price at the time of its determination, and even if only one of the two values is unclear, it shall be determined by the standard market price at the time of its determination, and the value of the real estate transferred at the time of its determination shall be calculated based on the standard market price at the time of its determination. In other words, it shall be interpreted that the transfer price at the time of its determination by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service is not permissible by the standard market price at the time of its determination.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the above defense tax and its additional tax, among the above defense tax and its additional tax for the amount of KRW 33,528,083,748,360 (the amount reverted to year 1980), which the defendant paid to the plaintiff as of September 7, 1982, exceeds KRW 3,902,065, among the above defense tax and its additional tax for the amount of KRW 215,481,843 (the amount reverted to year 1979), which were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as of September 7, 1982, exceeds the above defense tax and its additional tax for the amount of KRW 33,528,083, 848,360 (the amount reverted to year 1980), shall be based on the actual transaction price, and the acquisition price shall be calculated based on the standard market price or the ratio method under the Local Tax Act, so the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted only for the above excess portion, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

[Attachment List]

Judges Lee Han-gu (Presiding Judge)