Whether the purpose of speculation is to calculate gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price with respect to real estate transactions falling under Article 3 (3) 5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987) (negative)

According to Article 170 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12509 of Aug. 25, 1988), where the Commissioner of the National Tax Service can confirm the transfer or acquisition value in transactions deemed necessary to restrain real estate speculation, he/she shall calculate the transfer margin based on the actual transaction price as an exception to the principle of the standard market price, and accordingly, Article 170 (3) 5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of Jan. 26, 1987) provides that "when real estate is acquired and transferred within one year from the acquisition of real estate" as one of the above exceptional cases. Thus, in each of the above provisions, transfer margin shall be calculated based on the actual transaction price,

Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509, Aug. 25, 1988); Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12509, Jan. 26, 198); Article 980(3)5 of the

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu6138 delivered on November 9, 1990

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to Article 170 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509, Aug. 25, 1988), “Where the Commissioner of the National Tax Service can confirm the transfer or acquisition value in a transaction designated by him/her as deemed necessary to restrain transaction or speculation of real estate in a certain scale or more determined by regions” shall be calculated based on the actual transaction price as an exception to the principle of standard market price. Article 170 (3) 5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987) provides that “when real estate is acquired and transferred within one year from the acquisition of real estate” as one of the above exceptions. Thus, when real estate is acquired and transferred within one year from the enforcement of each of the above provisions, gains from transfer shall be calculated based on the actual transaction price, and whether it

Therefore, the court below did not examine and decide whether the plaintiff had the objective of speculation, and did not err in the incomplete hearing or omission of judgment as in the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the issue is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 10, 1987, Nonparty 1 acquired 54,237,500 won the forest of this case from Nonparty 2 on the basis of its macroficial evidence, and the Plaintiff acquired 1/3 of the forest of this case from Nonparty 1 on June 19 of the same year 8,200 won per square meter, and transferred 72,000,000 won to Nonparty 3 on December 5 of the same year. The court below determined that the Plaintiff should calculate the Plaintiff’s gains from transfer based on the actual acquisition price at the time of acquiring the above shares from Nonparty 1. In light of the records, the court below’s findings of fact and judgment are just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)