One of the acquisition and transfer of assets is a transaction with a corporation, etc., and both of them are confirmed to be the basis for calculation of gains on transfer.

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, and Articles 170(1) and 170(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), transfer value and acquisition value determined for transfer income tax shall, in principle, be based on the standard market price. However, if actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed in transactions with the State, a local government or other corporations, other than a transaction with a corporation, if actual transaction price is confirmed by the method of report or actual inspection, transfer margin shall be determined based on the actual transaction price.

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act; Articles 170(1) and 170(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu752 delivered on February 24, 1987, 87Nu767 delivered on April 11, 1989, and 88Nu1486 delivered on August 8, 1989

Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu192 delivered on October 25, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff transferred the real estate of this case to the East Child Welfare Council, a social welfare foundation, and registered the name of transfer under the contract to receive tax benefits in the future as Kim Il-sung, the representative of the above corporation, and completed the registration based on donations in the future in the defendant's future, and determined that the tax disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the actual transferee of the above real estate is the above corporation. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no

According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 170(1) and (4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the transfer value and acquisition value determined on transfer income shall be based on the standard market price in principle. However, in a transaction with the State, a local government or other juristic person, where the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed, other than a transaction with a juristic person, if the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed, the transfer gains should be determined on the basis of the actual transaction price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1486, Aug. 8, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu767, Apr. 11, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu752, Feb. 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 2005Nu752, Feb. 24, 1987).

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)