Main issues have not been prepared.

The summary of the decision has not been prepared.

Lee Jin-il and two others (Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Director of the tax office

September 23, 1981

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,482,953 and KRW 148,295 of the said defense tax against the Plaintiffs on February 14, 1980 shall be revoked, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(State Claim) Order is same as the Disposition.

(Preliminary Claim) The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 388,107 on February 14, 1980, KRW 388,107, KRW 388,810, and KRW 388,810, and KRW 174,739, and KRW 17,473 of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff’s transfer margin as to the Plaintiff’s transfer margin. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 17,473 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) First, the defendant's main defense is examined as to the defendant's main defense. Since the plaintiff's leather claimed that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful because it did not go through the pre-trial procedure for the request for examination on the disposition of the order, according to the plaintiff's written evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2, the plaintiff's written request for examination on the above disposition of the taxation (Evidence No. 2-1 of the above evidence No. 2-1 of the plaintiff's written request for examination is indicated as the claimant's objection date and the defendant's written decision (Evidence No. 2-2 of the above evidence No. 2-1 of the above written request for examination) are indicated as only "the plaintiff's objection No. 1" without any dispute over the establishment of the above written request for examination on the above evidence No. 3 of the plaintiff's legal representative, the plaintiff's written request for examination on the above legal representative's transfer of the above written request for examination can not be seen as being included in the above written request for examination of the plaintiff's legal representative's written request for examination.

In addition, the defendant's decision that the above national tax appeal against the plaintiff's above taxation disposition should be made to three parties in installments according to their respective shares (No. 3). Accordingly, the defendant's new decision that the transfer income tax on the plaintiff's stock ownership as of December 1, 1980 should be 38,107, and 38,810 won should be corrected (No. 7 evidence, No. 10) and its new decision that the plaintiff's new decision that the above disposition was issued to the plaintiff's 1 as to the plaintiff's 1 as to the above taxation disposition (No. 8, 9, 112, 12, 1980) was not followed by the new decision that the plaintiff's new decision that had been issued to the plaintiff's 1 as to the plaintiff's 1 as well as the new decision that had not been issued to the plaintiff's 1 as to the plaintiff's previous decision that had not been issued by the plaintiff's new decision to the plaintiff's 1 as to the above taxation disposition.

(2) Next, as to the merits, we examine the primary claims of the plaintiffs.

The facts that the defendant issued a disposition of disposition against the plaintiffs on February 14, 1980 do not conflict between the parties. The above facts are as follows: Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-3, Gap evidence 4, 5, 6-1, 2, and 3; Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3; considering the whole purport of the pleading, the above facts that the non-party owned the non-party's above land as the non-party's co-inheritors; the plaintiffs died on January 25, 1979; the plaintiffs sold this case' land to non-party 24, 11,258,000 won on March 24, 197; the transfer value of the transfer profits from the transfer of the above land is 10,000 won or more; the transfer value of the above land is 10,000 won or more; the transfer price is 10,000 won or more; the transfer price is 10,000 won or more,00 won.

The plaintiffs clearly state the principle of market price in Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. The land in this case belongs to the same period within two months from the commencement date of the inheritance, and the land in this case belongs to the same period under the application of the standard market price stipulated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. Since the above transfer is merely an accurate evaluation of the market price of the land in this case, and it does not constitute a case where the actual market price as stipulated in Article 45 (1) of the Income Tax Act is unclear, not only the standard market price but also the actual market price is not clear, so there is no possibility of price difference. In addition, in the calculation of gains on transfer, it is reasonable to determine gains on transfer by the same standard as the actual market price. Even though the transfer price is calculated based on the same standard, the transfer price is the actual market price. Thus, since the acquisition price in this case is the actual market price in this case is calculated based on the standard market price and the acquisition price in this case is legitimate if the acquisition price in this case is determined based on the standard market price of inheritance.

Since it is clear that there is a common difference between the above market price and the actual market price at the time of transfer, if the transfer price is determined based on the actual market price, such acquisition price is also determined based on the actual market price so that it is unclear that the transfer price is determined based on the current market price at the time of transfer. Thus, if the transfer price at the time of transfer is determined based on the current market price at the time of transfer, it is reasonable in view of the fair taxation principle that the transfer price should be determined based on the current market price at the time of transfer and the above actual market price at the time of transfer, and it is difficult to determine the transfer price at the time of transfer as 1,258,00 won in the calculation of gains from transfer of the land at the time of transfer (this point is the same as the original and the defendant's assertion) because it is difficult to determine the current market price at the time of transfer by the above provision of the Local Tax Act at the time of transfer because the acquisition price at the time of transfer cannot be determined based on the current market price at the time of succession.

(3) If so, it is clear that the transfer value and acquisition value of the land of this case are calculated as the standard market price regardless of the actual transaction price or if they are calculated as the standard market price, so the taxation disposition based on the premise that the transfer margin exists is unlawful. Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim seeking revocation of the taxation disposition is reasonable. Thus, it is accepted without any further determination as to the conjunctive claim, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to

October 14, 1981

Judges Yellowdon (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jae-chul