In imposing real estate transfer income tax, whether the transfer value may be assessed as the actual transaction price and the acquisition value may be assessed as the standard market price.

In case where there exists the expected return on the transfer of real estate or the final return on the return on the transfer of real estate, the transfer amount and the acquisition value shall be based on the actual market price, but in such case, if the actual transaction price is unclear or there is no such scheduled return or final return,

Article 23 (1), (5) and (6) of the Income Tax Act, Article 95 of the Income Tax Act, Article 100 (1), (2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, Article 45 (1) of the Income Tax Act (Gu)

Plaintiff

Head of Western Tax Office

Dispositions imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on March 24, 1979 in excess of KRW 2,07,674 of capital gains tax, KRW 200,767 of capital gains tax, and KRW 1,157,017 of capital gains tax, and KRW 115,701 of the same defense tax, respectively, shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

Two-minutes of litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

The disposition that the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 2,007,674 on the Plaintiff on March 24, 1979 and KRW 200,767 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

As for the facts that the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on March 24, 1979 KRW 2,07,674, KRW 200,767, and KRW 200,767, there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and comprehensively taking account of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-2, and evidence Nos. 1-2, and 6-2, of the same evidence No. 1-2, the Plaintiff purchased 10, 210, 100, KRW 50, and KRW 67, and then acquired 30,000, KRW 37,000, KRW 47, and KRW 96,00, KRW 86,000, KRW 167, the acquisition value of the above land, KRW 36,000, KRW 86,000, KRW 37,000, KRW 97, the acquisition value of the land determined pursuant to the prescribed tax base.

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case based on the tax base that the defendant denied the actual transaction price of this case without any ground is unlawful. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case based on the tax base that was confirmed by the defendant's rejection of the actual transaction price of this case is legitimate. Thus, according to Articles 23 (1), 2, 5, 45 (6) and 45 (1) of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 2933 of December 22, 1976), which was effective at the time of the above taxation requirement, the transfer price of land shall be the amount calculated by deducting the necessary expenses such as acquisition price from the transfer price from the transfer price after deducting the special deduction for transfer income and the special deduction for transfer income from the transfer price. The transfer price and the acquisition price shall be based on each actual transaction price. According to the provisions of Articles 95 (1) and (2), 100 (1), 2, and 45 (3) of the same Act, the resident who transferred the above assets from the transfer price and the final return for transfer income, or the transfer price shall be applied to the above transfer price.

If a resident who has received the determination of capital gains pursuant to the above provision makes a final return on the tax base of the capital gains, he may determine the capital gains according to the actual transaction price. The purport of the above provision is that the transfer price and the acquisition price shall be based on the actual transaction price, if there is a final return on the profit accruing from the transfer of the land, and the transfer price and the acquisition price shall be assessed according to the current current market price, if it is unclear or there is no such provisional return or final return on the return on the transfer of the land. Therefore, in this case where there is no provisional return on the profit accruing from the transfer of the land, the transfer price and the acquisition price

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the arguments and arguments adopted earlier with respect to the tax base and tax amount on the transfer of this case, the transfer value at the time of the transfer of this case shall be 483,00 won (96.6 square meters x 50,000 won), the acquisition value at the time of the transfer of this case shall be 1,043,280 won, the necessary expenses shall be 52,164 won, the deduction amount at 906,193, the special deduction amount at 906,193, and the special deduction amount at 190,000 won, and there is no evidence which can be determined. According to Article 70 (3) of the Income Tax Act, the transfer income tax amount at the time of the transfer of this case shall be 1,928,363 won x 106,100 won, the total acquisition value at the time of the above transfer income tax / 106,190 won / 1060 of the transfer income tax amount at the above 105010.3

If so, the part of the disposition of this case imposed on each of the capital gains tax amounting to KRW 1,157,017, and KRW 115,701 is legitimate, and the part of the disposition imposed in excess of this amount is illegal and thus should be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim of this case, based on the premise that all of the disposition of this case is illegal, shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge) Kim Full-time Constitution