A. Where the parties have asserted that the subject matter of the claim is the subject matter of the lawsuit, but it is unclear by itself of the purport of the claim, the case holding that if the parties clearly changed the purport of the claim according to the cause of the claim, it cannot be viewed as a new lawsuit.

B. Whether the grounds for objection in administrative litigation ought to be consistent with the allegations in the pre-trial proceedings (negative)

(c) Where the actual transaction price of one of the transfer and acquisition values of assets is unclear, such price determined method;

A. Although it is unclear whether the purport of the claim itself is a subject matter of lawsuit, if the party asserts that it is a subject matter of lawsuit due to the cause of the claim, the court must clarify whether the claim is the same as that of the claim, and later, if the purport of the claim is changed clearly as the cause of the claim, the new claim shall not be deemed to be a new claim. Thus, the court below should have stated that the plaintiff's request for re-investigation of the transfer income tax, defense detailed and disposition of the land 1977 and 1978 as to the land owned by the plaintiff was unreasonable, and the plaintiff again appealed against the plaintiff, and the decision of correction of the national tax Tribunal's request for re-examination was made in 197 and 1978 together with the disposition of the 1977 and 19778. Thus, the court below should have stated that the plaintiff's request for re-examination was omitted in the first two-year disposition, and it should have clearly stated that the plaintiff's request for re-adjudication of the original claim is included in the plaintiff's claim 17 years.

B. Prior to filing an administrative litigation, requiring a prior trial procedure to pass through the prior trial procedure is recognized to the effect that prior to the judgment of the court on the illegality of the disposition in question under consideration of the characteristics of the disposition in question and separation of powers, giving the relevant disposition authority or its superior authority an opportunity to reconsider and promoting effective relief by simple and prompt procedures, etc. Therefore, the grounds for appeal in the administrative litigation need not necessarily coincide with the allegations in the prior trial procedure.

(c) In calculating transfer income, its transfer value and acquisition value shall be determined either on the basis of, or equal to, the same actual transaction value, or on the basis of the same standard market price, and in case where such actual transaction value is unclear, on the other hand, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be determined on the same standard market price, unless it is determined after investigating the actual transaction value; and

(a) Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act; (c) Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu95 Delivered on July 8, 1980

[Defendant-Appellant] Jinho, Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Attorney Ansan-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu738 delivered on February 24, 1981

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground of appeal pointing this out is examined. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Although it is unclear whether the parties are the subject-matter of a claim or not by itself, if the parties assert that the subject-matter of a claim is the cause of the claim, the court must clarify whether the claim is identical to the fact that the cause of the claim is the cause of the claim, and later, if the purport of the claim is modified to clarify the cause of the claim, it cannot be deemed a new claim

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on December 28, 1979 even after being notified of the decision on the appeal of this case on November 1, 1979, the plaintiff did not file any claim as to the additional imposition disposition of capital gains tax of 28,230,711 won and defense tax of 5,694,978 won among each of the dispositions of this case, and it is evident in the record that the revocation is sought only from the preparatory documents of November 24, 1980, and the lawsuit of this case was dismissed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit of this case.

However, according to Gap evidence 3 (written request for examination), Gap evidence 4 (written decision), Gap evidence 5 (written request for trial), Eul evidence 6-1, 2-2 (written decision), etc., the defendant made a decision on capital gains tax of 386-1, 2, and 3 of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as of March 5, 197 as well as 9-2, 3, and 11-2, 6, 7, 88, 61, 8, 61-2, and 11-2, 3, 78, 61-2, 38, 97, 197, 38, 197, 197, 38, 197, 38, 197, 47, 47, 197, 197, 197, 38, 197, 197, 197, 197, 197, 197, 7, 2.

1. The acquisition value of Seongbuk-gu's 61-58 and 61-79 to 240 square meters shall be the value appraised by the market price as of January 1, 1968; and the 15,000,000,000, and the litigation cost as of the transfer of such real estate shall be calculated as the necessary expenses of transferred assets;

2. The remaining claims were dismissed. Accordingly, the defendant decided to dismiss the capital gains tax amounting to KRW 323,680,738 in 1978 as KRW 282,384,423.

The entry in the order of the above decision is a misunderstanding that the disposition was combined with the disposition in the year 1977 and the disposition in the year 1978 and the disposition in the year 1978. Thus, the purport of the above decision is to understand that there was a single correction decision as to each of the above disposition in the year 1979 and the disposition imposing capital gains tax in the year 1978 as of March 5, 1979 and the decision of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service of June 25, 1979 and the decision of the Director of the National Tax Tribunal of August 13, 1979 as to the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 282,384,423 and the same defense tax of KRW 56,476,884 as well as KRW 181,861,732 and KRW 36,372,346 as well as KRW 197, and it is reasonable to view that the purport of the above decision should be considered as having been omitted for the claim for the tax disposition in the year 1978.

This is because, if the plaintiff's intent is to bring an action only against the disposition of 1978, the disposition of 1977 and the disposition of 1978, and without stating the scope of the tax amount to be cancelled, it is clear that the plaintiff's claim is subject to cancellation of more than several won during the disposition of 1978 transfer income tax for the year 1978. Furthermore, the disposition of 1977 for the transfer income tax is illegal such as unfairly recognizing the acquisition value and special deduction amount of 386-1, 2, and 3 real estate subject to this taxation and denying introduction expenses as necessary expenses. Accordingly, the tax amount to be paid by the plaintiff is as shown in the attached Table 5, clearly stating the scope of the tax amount to be cancelled in the disposition of 1977 and the amount to be cancelled in the calculation of the amount of the transfer income tax for the year 1978 and the amount to be cancelled in the calculation of the amount of the transfer income tax for the year 1978 (see the claim amount to be cancelled).

Therefore, the court below should have examined the above unclear points in the plaintiff's statement in comparison with the facts of the cause of the claim. Thus, if the plaintiff's original purport of the claim includes the purport of seeking revocation of 1977/197, the court below cannot be viewed as a new lawsuit that made an amendment of the purport of the claim by clarifying that the revocation of the disposition in 1977 was sought from the preparatory document dated November 24, 1980, and it cannot be viewed as a new lawsuit. The latter part of the plaintiff's original purport of the claim is expressed. However, with regard to the additional disposition in 1977/197, which was collected only on the date of cancellation of the plaintiff's correction decision 282,384,423 of the correction decision 282,384,423.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

point 1,

Before filing an administrative litigation, the term “insub-trial procedure” means that the court’s judgment on the illegality of the disposition in question is given an opportunity to reconsider the administrative agency or its superior agency prior to the determination of the court on the illegality of the disposition in question under the special nature of the disposition in question and the separation of powers, and also seeks an effective relief by simple and speedy procedure. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the grounds for appeal in the administrative litigation does not necessarily coincide with the allegations in the pre-trial procedure

point 2,

In calculating capital gains, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be determined on the basis of the same actual transaction value, or at the same price standard, and in cases where any one of the actual transaction values is unclear, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be determined on the basis of the same market price standard, as in the consistent precedents of the party members (Supreme Court Decision 80Nu95 Decided July 8, 1980), and there is no reason for changing the same, and the fact-finding that there is no evidence to support that the acquisition value of two parcels of land located in the unborn child is KRW 1,440,000, in light of the records, the court below is justified in its conclusion that there is no evidence to support that there is no evidence to support that the acquisition value of two parcels of land located in the unborn child is KRW 1,440,00.

point 3,

The issue is that it depends on the criticism of the judgment of the court of fact-finding with the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of fact-finding, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation, even if the judgment of the court of fact-finding is compared

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)