A. Whether the judgment of the court below is a ground for reversal of obvious clerical error, which is the ground for correcting the judgment (negative)

B. Whether the acquisition price of an unauthorized building that purchased and paid an unauthorized building to obtain the right to move into the apartment is the actual expenses required for the acquisition of the right to move into the apartment and the calculation of the gains on transfer is necessary (affirmative)

A. The judgment of the court below stating that the defendant's indication should be stated as the head of Songdong Tax Office shall constitute an obvious clerical error and thus constitutes a ground for rectification of judgment. However, if it is merely a ground for rectification of judgment as above, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed.

B. In the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, with respect to a homeless who is the owner of an unauthorized building in the area planned for the building of apartment, if the building without permission was purchased to obtain the right to move into the apartment by lot in accordance with the policy to publicly announce that the right to move into the apartment at the time of the removal, the acquisition of the building without permission is merely for the acquisition of the right to move into the apartment in the future, and it does not aim at the acquisition of the building without permission itself. Thus, even if there is no direct payment to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City in acquiring the right to move into the apartment from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the acquisition price of the building without permission is the actual cost required for the acquisition of the right to move into the apartment, and thus, it should be deducted in calculating the transfer margin by deeming the acquisition price as the acquisition

Article 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 94 (1) 1 and Article 86 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu809, 810, 811 Decided September 8, 1987 (Gong1987, 1562) (Gong1562) decided July 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1784) 91Nu2236 decided Oct. 8, 191 (Dong)

Plaintiff

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu9120 delivered on January 24, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

According to the records, at the time of the disposition of this case, the jurisdiction was under the jurisdiction of the head of the Songpa District Tax Office, but later became under the jurisdiction of the head of the Songpa District Tax Office due to the change of jurisdiction. In the plaintiff's complaint of this case, the plaintiff's complaint of this case erroneously stated the defendant's indication as the head of the Songpa District Tax Office, and all of the preparatory documents submitted by the defendant and all of the answers and briefs submitted by the defendant were submitted by the head of the Songpa District Tax Office. Thus, in the lawsuit of this case, the intention of the party was the defendant of the Songpa District Tax Office, and therefore, the decision of the court below stated that the defendant's indication as the head of the Songpa District Tax Office should be stated as the defendant of the Songpa District Tax Office constitutes an obvious clerical error, and it is not a ground for reversal of the judgment of the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu236, Oct. 8, 191). The argument

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased the above unauthorized building in 13,00,000 won from Non-Party 1 in order to obtain the right to occupy the apartment at the time of removal to non-resident who is the owner of the above apartment building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City because the day of the apartment building including the above unauthorized Building was designated as the 88 Olympic Winter Building site for the 88 Olympic Games, and the non-resident who is the owner of the above apartment building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and purchased the above unauthorized Building in 13,00,000 won from Non-Party 1 in order to obtain the right to occupy the apartment. After the removal of the above unauthorized Building, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the non-party 2 around May 14, 1987, the right to occupy the apartment building was transferred to the non-party 6,80,000 won, and in light of all circumstances surrounding the acquisition and transfer of the above right to occupy the apartment building, the plaintiff paid the above purchase price directly to the above without permission.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)