(a) The method of calculating gains on transfer where the actual transaction values can be disclosed at the time of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982);

(b) The time limit of submission of data attesting the actual transaction price in an appeal litigation disputing a disposition of capital gains tax;

A. According to Articles 23(2) and (4), and 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), and Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982), in a case where a preliminary return on transfer margin or a final return on tax base has not been filed, capital gains may be determined based on the standard market price, which is the method of estimated assessment, by presumption that the actual transaction price is unclear. However, in a case where there is any evidence to reverse such presumption, the amount of capital gains may be determined based on the actual transaction price and may not be based on the standard market

B. In an administrative litigation disputing the illegality of taxation, the parties concerned may submit arguments and materials supporting the objective amount of tax liability until the closing of argument in the lawsuit, so even in an administrative litigation disputing the disposition of capital gains tax, the evidence proving the actual transaction value may be submitted until the closing of argument.

A. Article 23(2) and (4), and Article 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982); Article 170(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982); Article 136 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu553 decided Dec. 27, 1983; 84Nu708 decided Aug. 23, 1985; b. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu356 decided Nov. 13, 1984; 84Nu410 decided Feb. 8, 1985

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1110 decided April 8, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to Articles 23(2) and (4), 45(1), and Article 170(3) of the Income Tax Act, which was in force at the time of the transfer of the land in this case, where transfer margin or the final return on the tax base is not made, the transfer income amount may be determined based on the standard market price, which is the method of estimated taxation, by presumption that the actual transaction price is unclear once. However, where there is evidence to reverse such presumption, it shall be based on the actual transaction price and where there is no evidence to reverse it, it shall not be based on the standard market price, which is the method of estimated assessment. In administrative litigation disputing the illegality of taxation, the parties concerned may submit arguments and materials supporting the objective amount of tax liability until the closing of argument in the litigation, so the Plaintiff may submit evidence proving the actual transaction price until the closing of argument (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu553, Dec. 27, 1983; 84Nu708, Aug. 13, 1985).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the tax disposition of this case, based on the premise that the plaintiff's share was gains from transfer, was unlawful in light of the records, and that the plaintiff acquired the site of this case from the non-party 2 for 33,495,000 won on August 18, 1978, but transferred to the non-party 3 for 35,000 won on September 3, 1980, but if the transfer cost and the deduction amount of capital gains from transfer is deducted for 900,000 won, the tax base is reduced (the plaintiff's share of 1,505,000 won is 752,50 won out of the above gains from transfer). The court below's disposition of this case, based on the premise that the plaintiff's share was gains from transfer, is unlawful in light of the records, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, or the finding of facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)