Choi Young (Attorney Shin-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 229,125,00 against the Plaintiff on February 16, 1991, the part exceeding KRW 25,345,024 among the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 229,125,00, and KRW 5,069,000 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 45,825,00,000, which the Defendant imposed against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Facts recognized;

On December 20, 1928, the plaintiff acquired the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as this case's land) through a successful bid on December 20, 1928, and transferred it to the majority of the non-party, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case on May 6, 1989. The defendant shall calculate the transfer value of the land of this case under Article 23 (4) and Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 53 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), and calculated the transfer value of the land of this case under Article 53 (1) 1 of the same Act by converting the transfer value of the land of this case into the standard market price of this case at the time of disposal of 10.25 1, 201.25

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

On April 25, 1985, the defendant asserted that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the applicable provisions of the law. The plaintiff first, he sold the land of this case to the highest order 178,320,000 won on the same day and received all the purchase price on the same day. Thus, the transfer price of the land of this case is about April 25, 1985, and the transfer price of the land of this case is about 25,345,024 won, defense tax is about 5,000 won, and about 5,069,000 won, which is above the above amount in the disposition of this case which deemed the transfer date as the transfer date. Second, even if the transfer time of the land of this case is considered as the above registration date, the transfer income tax is about 178,320,000 won, which is the actual transaction price, and the transfer price of this case is over 97,000 won and is over 97,0197,04,084,00.

First of all, in calculating gains on transfer of a company, Article 27 of the Income Tax Act provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer under Article 27 of the same Act shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant assets except for the following cases. If the date of liquidation is unclear, the date of the balance payment agreement entered in a sales contract shall be the date of the remainder payment agreement: Provided, That if the period from the date of the balance payment agreement to the date of receipt of registration exceeds one month, the date of receipt of registration entered in the register, register, or list shall

Therefore, according to the evidence No. 4, which can be recognized as the date of liquidation of the above purchase price as the date of April 25, 1985, it is difficult for the plaintiff to enter into a sales contract for the above 178,320,000 won on the 5th day of February 19, 1985, which is the date of liquidation of the above purchase price, as the date of the above 1.5th day of April 25, 1985, as well as the date of settlement of the price for the above 1.5th day of the above 196th day of April 25, 198, which is the date of the above 196th day of sale, as the date of the above 19th day of sale and purchase price for the above 5th day of the above 1st day of sale and purchase, it is hard to find that the plaintiff received the remaining 10th day of sale and purchase of the above 4th day of the above 1st day of sale and purchase price.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate when calculating the transfer margin according to the standard market price based on the method of reporting the transfer margin as of May 6, 1989, the date of receipt of the registration of the above two-mentioned registration of the above-mentioned land of this case, and the plaintiff's first assertion is groundless.

Next, the plaintiff's second assertion, and Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) of the Income Tax Act provide that the transfer and acquisition value of assets shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and acquisition of the assets. However, in the case prescribed by the Presidential Decree, Article 170 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the actual transaction price shall be based on the actual transaction price. Article 95 or 100 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the transferor can confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and acquisition by the documentary evidence submitted by the transferor at the time of report pursuant to the provisions of Article 95 or 100 of the Act. Thus, in this case where there is no proof, the transfer and acquisition value of the land of this case must be based on the standard market price, so

Finally, after examining the plaintiff's third claim, Article 23 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that the transfer income amount shall be the amount calculated by deducting the following amount in sequence from transfer margin after deducting necessary expenses under Article 45 from transfer gains due to the transfer of the property in question. Paragraph (1) 2 of the same paragraph provides that the assets as referred to in paragraph (1) 1 (excluding the land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) holding period of not less than 5 years shall be the amount calculated according to the classification of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the "long-term holding special deductible amount"), and that the holding period of not less than 10 years shall be deducted from the amount of long-term holding special deductible amount. With respect to the land for which the above deduction is not granted, since the land category under the Cadastral Act is a land category of which under the same Act, and it shall not be deemed that there is no special long-term holding deduction amount for not less than 10 years, since it shall not be deemed that the above land is currently used for not less than 3 years by the plaintiff due to be used as the above land:

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed without merit, and the costs of this case are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)