Whether Article 9 of the Addenda to the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended on December 31, 1974) is invalid in violation of the parent law.

According to Articles 23(5) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 2796, Dec. 22, 1975; Act No. 2933, Dec. 22, 1976); transfer value and acquisition value of real estate shall be based on the current market price at the time of transfer and acquisition only when the actual transaction price is unclear; Article 16 of the Addenda of the same Act provides that real estate acquired before December 31, 1967 shall be deemed to have been acquired on January 1, 1968; therefore, the asset acquired before December 31, 1967 shall be deemed to have been invalidated by a violation of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 974, Dec. 31, 1974).

Articles 23 and 45 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 2796, Dec. 22, 1975; Act No. 2933, Dec. 22, 1976); Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Dec. 31, 1974)

Plaintiff

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu52 delivered on December 13, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the provisions of Articles 23(5) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 2796, Dec. 22, 1975; Act No. 2933, Dec. 22, 1976); in principle, the transfer price and acquisition price of real estate shall be based on the actual transaction price; in cases where the actual transaction price is unclear, it shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition; and in cases where the actual transaction price is unclear, Article 16 of the Addenda of the same Act provides that the real estate acquired before December 31, 1967 shall be deemed to have been acquired on January 1, 1968; and therefore, in cases where the market price is unknown, it shall be based on the current market price as of January 1, 1968; it shall not be reasonable to interpret the concept of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3150, Dec. 31, 1974).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the acquisition price according to the current market price as of January 1, 1968 on the ground that the market price of this real estate as of January 1, 1968 cannot be deemed to be the same amount as the plaintiff's principal, and unlike others, it cannot determine the market price at that time. In light of the records, the court below's measures are just and there is no error of law

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)