If only one transfer value is calculated by multiple rates, the legality of the disposition imposing capital gains tax based on such rates;

In calculating the gains from the transfer of real estate, if the transfer value is calculated according to the ratio method under Article 115(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978) which entered into force at the time of the transfer, and the acquisition value is calculated by a method other than the ratio method by retroactively applying Article 115(3) of the same Enforcement Decree (the Enforcement Decree, Jan. 1, 1980) which enters into force after the transfer, and if it is assessed by a method other than the ratio method, it

Article 115 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229 of December 30, 1978)

Plaintiff

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu866 delivered on June 28, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As determined by the court below, in calculating the transfer margin of the real estate located in a specific region, the transfer value is calculated by multiplying the standard market price under the Local Tax Act at the time of the transfer acquisition by the rate determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service based on the purchase price of land and buildings with similar price conditions in each region at the time of transfer by the standard market price under the Local Tax Act at the time of transfer acquisition, but the acquisition value is calculated by any other method than the above rate under Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree (Enforcement of January 1, 1980), which is enforced after the transfer of this case, by the method other than the above rate under the above provision under Article 115 (2) of the Enforcement Decree which is enforced at the time of the occurrence of taxation requirements, and is unlawful. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of affecting the judgment, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ratio of the specific area, and thus, it cannot be asserted in the ground of appeal.

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 Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)