A. The purpose of Article 170(4)2(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989; Presidential Decree No. 12767, Dec. 31, 1990); and the purpose of Article 170(4)2(e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 199)

B. The case holding that the principle of imposing the standard market price should apply since the sale price is not an speculative transaction, although the sale price was reduced on the sales contract, in case where the land is sold and the sales contract is prepared.

A. The purport of Article 170 (4) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989; Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990) is to impose capital gains tax on the speculative act by requiring transfer margin to be calculated based on the actual transaction price with respect to such speculative act. In full view of the provisions of the main text and proviso of the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret that such an act constitutes one speculative transaction if it falls under a type of speculative transaction listed in the above provision, even if it is presumed that such transaction falls under a type of speculative transaction, taking into account specific circumstances such as the process of acquisition, utilization, sale circumstances, period of holding, etc. of the real estate in question, where it is deemed that the transaction has no speculation as a normal economic act, it should be excluded from the application of the actual transaction price under the proviso of the above provision, and the standard market price should be calculated based on the standard market price.

B. In selling the land and preparing a sales contract, the case holding that the principle of imposing the standard market price under the proviso of the Enforcement Decree of Paragraph (a) above shall apply to the land transaction, since it cannot be deemed an speculative transaction in light of the purpose and circumstance of the acquisition of the land, the actual use of the land, and the circumstances of the sale, even though the sale price was reduced on the sales contract upon a request from the buyer to prepare a sales contract by consistent with the unit price for purchase of the connected land due to the land transaction report.

Article 23 (4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 170 (4) 2 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190)

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4829 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,715) 92Nu5836 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192,2439)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu10543 delivered on December 3, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case from the non-party Chang Chang Industrial Co., Ltd. for 862,50,00 won on January 10, 198, but it was stated falsely as 1,965,90 won on the contract with the non-party 4, such as Geumsung Family Housing Association, etc. for which the transfer price was approved on March 6, 1990. However, the court below held that the plaintiff's acquisition of the land of this case was for the purpose of establishing a 1,965,90,00 won for the purpose of the subsequent settlement of the land and music education on the land of this case, and it is reasonable to establish a comprehensive sale price plan for the above purpose of this case for the purpose of acquisition and sale to the non-party 1,000 won on the basis of the above provision on the market price of this case, and it is reasonable to conclude that the above real price was calculated differently from the actual sale price of the land of this case by the above 90-party 1, who purchased the land.

Even if the Plaintiff prepared a false sales contract with a different purchase price in the transfer of the instant land, if the purpose and circumstance of the acquisition of the relevant land, the actual conditions of the use thereof, and the reasons for sale are as indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff’s transaction of the instant land cannot be deemed an speculative transaction, and therefore, the principle of assessment of standard market price should be applied to the instant case, as stipulated in the proviso of Article

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the transaction of the land of this case does not constitute speculation, is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as to the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)