(a) Purport of Article 23(4) of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978); Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 20, 1978);

(b) The submission of evidence in an appeal litigation disputing the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax;

A. The purpose of Article 23(4) of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978); Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 20, 1978) is that the transfer value and the acquisition value shall be based on the actual transaction value, but if a taxpayer fails to make a preliminary return on transfer margin or a final return on tax base, the transfer value and the acquisition value shall be determined based on the standard market price, which is the method of estimated taxation, by presumption that the actual transaction value is unclear, once the data can be acknowledged is submitted, it shall be based on the actual transaction value,

B. In an administrative litigation disputing the illegality of taxable income, the parties concerned may submit arguments and evidence in support of the objective amount of tax liability until the conclusion of pleadings. Thus, in an administrative litigation disputing the disposition of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff may also submit evidence proving the actual transaction value until the closing of pleadings.

A. Article 23(4) of the former Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978); Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 136 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu553 delivered on December 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu106 delivered on September 25, 1984

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu359 delivered on November 11, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below affirmed the judgment below that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party 33,600,000 won from May 4, 1971, and the land has been sunken on the ground floor at the time of its acquisition, and about about 500 square meters had not been completed after the completion of reclamation work. Thus, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and 15 twice of November 15, 1974 entered into a contract for land reclamation works and construction works, and paid KRW 30,500,000 as the construction price. The court below determined that the above acquisition price of this case was 33,60,000,000 won (the debt amount due to non-paid donation) and the above acquisition price was 33,60,000,000 won and 30,500,000 won for land improvement expenses and 300,500,000 won for the above land improvement loan, and therefore, the court below's findings are justified in the records.

2. Article 23(4) of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978); Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 929, Dec. 20, 1978) provides that the transfer price shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer of the relevant asset if the actual transaction price is unclear, and that the transfer price and the transfer price shall be determined based on the standard market price if the actual transaction price cannot be determined due to the failure of the preliminary return on transfer or the final return on tax base under Article 95 or 100 of the same Act. The purport of the above provision is that the transfer price and the acquisition price shall be based on the actual transaction price, but it shall be presumed that the actual transaction price can be determined based on the standard market price which is estimated to be unclear and thus, it shall be deemed that there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle regarding the transfer price and the transfer price to be determined based on the standard market price.

3. 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 judges.

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)