(a) Location of the burden of proving the presumption of and the exceptional reasons for the report on land transaction contracts;

B. The method of calculating transfer margin in cases falling under Article 170(4)1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

C. Whether Article 72(3)1 and 5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (National Tax Service Directive No. 980) violates the principle of no taxation without the law (negative)

A. If the parties who reported the land transaction contract in accordance with the provisions of Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory enter into the contract without any change, the contract shall be presumed to have been entered into in accordance with the reported content unless there are special circumstances, such as that the contract amount was erroneously entered at the time of the report, or the amount was inevitably entered differently from the agreement, or that the contract was entered into in an amount different from the predetermined amount due to the price fluctuation, etc. between the transaction report date and the actual transaction date, etc.

B. In full view of the contents of Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), and Article 170(1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), the transfer value and acquisition value, which form the basis for calculating gains on transfer of assets, shall be based on the standard market price in principle. In a case falling under Article 170(4)1 or 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, regardless of whether the transfer falls under Article 170(4)3 of the same Act, even if the transferor did not file a report under Article 95 or 100 of the Income Tax Act, but did not submit documentary evidence verifying the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer, if all of the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer is confirmed by the taxation authority’s investigation, and it can be confirmed by the transfer value of transfer value at the date.

C. Unlike Article 72(3)1 and 5 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigations (National Tax Service Directive No. 980), Article 72(3)1 and 5 do not constitute a violation of the principle of no taxation without law.

A. Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 26). Article 23(4) and Article 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 170(1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1151 delivered on October 16, 1990 (Gong1990, 2322) 89Nu7092 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 116) 90Nu10186 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1538) B. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2519 delivered on October 13, 1989 (Gong1989, 1695) 90Nu4396 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong190, 2200), 91Nu461 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 1948) 190Nu39799 delivered on September 39, 209 (Gong1949, Nov. 29, 1997)

Plaintiff

Head of the Military Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 89Gu1154 delivered on September 13, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff acquired land from November 15, 1975 to the non-party 1, 9 (hereinafter "the land Gap") were transferred to the non-party 1, etc. on January 15, 198, and the non-party 2, who purchased the land from the non-party 2 for 18,00,00 won on the ground that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were no longer than 10,00 won for 7 years before the acquisition of the land under the proviso of Article 97 of the Income Tax Act by considering that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were no more than 9,00 won for 7 years after the conclusion of the contract by the non-party 4 and the non-party 11 (hereinafter "the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were no more than 9,000 won for the transfer of the land under the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1.

In addition, if the party who reported the land transaction contract in accordance with the provisions of Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory enters into the contract without any change, the contract amount shall be presumed to have been entered into as reported, unless there are special circumstances, such as that there is an error in the contract amount at the time of the report, or there is a reason not to enter the predetermined amount differently from the predetermined amount, or that there is a need to newly set the price between the transaction date and the actual transaction date, etc., and there is a need to enter the contract in an amount different from the predetermined amount, and it is reasonable to impose the burden of proof on the claimant regarding the above circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10186, Apr. 23, 191; 90Nu1151, Oct. 16, 190). Thus, the plaintiff Eul and Byung's actual transfer value of land is presumed to be the transfer value of the above contract amount, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to believe Gap's.

2. In full view of the contents of Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act and Article 170(1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the said Income Tax Act, the transfer value and acquisition value, which form the basis for calculating gains on transfer of assets, shall, in principle, be based on the standard market price, and in a case falling under Article 170(4)1 or 2 of the said Enforcement Decree, regardless of whether the transferor falls under Article 170(4)3 of the said Enforcement Decree, even though the transferor did not make a report under Article 95 or 100 of the Income Tax Act, or did not submit documentary evidence that can verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition and transfer, if the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition and transfer is confirmed (it can be confirmed by the investigation of the taxation authority, and if the taxpayer is able to verify by data submitted by the time of closing argument in the lawsuit claiming the cancellation of the disposition on transfer income tax, it shall be determined that all the acquisition value and transfer value should be calculated based on the standard market value.

3. A party member’s established view that Article 72(3)1 and 5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (National Tax Service Directive No. 980) does not violate the principle of no taxation without law, unlike Article 72(3)8 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4211, Sept. 25, 190; 90Nu639, May 22, 1990; 89Nu3731, Feb. 9, 190; 90Nu3768, Jul. 27, 1990; 90Nu3768, Jul. 27, 1990) is not appropriate in this case.

4. The transfer of the instant land was in 1988, but the instant taxation disposition was conducted before the deadline for the final return of the tax base under Article 100(1) of the Income Tax Act was deprived of the Plaintiff’s opportunity to report, and the instant taxation disposition is unlawful, and it is merely a new argument regarding the instant taxation disposition that was not asserted by the fact-finding court, and thus, cannot be accepted. The arguments are without merit.

5.This appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)