A. The meaning of actual transaction value in imposing capital gains tax

(b) In case where the actual transaction price is not revealed or only part of it is revealed, the calculation of gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price;

A. In imposing the transfer income tax, in case of calculating the transfer margin based on the actual transaction value of assets, the actual transaction value refers to the whole of the actual amount agreed in return for payment at the time of the transaction.

B. In a transaction with a juristic person, Article 170 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989) recognizes exceptions to the principle of assessment of the standard market price and thus, it shall be strictly interpreted. Thus, in a case where the actual transaction price in the transaction concerned is not revealed, it is not allowed to analogicalize the other transaction or presume it by detention, but to regard it as the actual transaction price on the ground that the transaction price becomes a part of the actual transaction price, even if it is more favorable for the taxpayer than when the actual transaction price is revealed in whole, such a calculation method is arbitrary, and it cannot be said that the income tax law

Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 170(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu407 delivered on November 27, 1984 (Gong1985,91) 92Nu14472 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1024). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu810 delivered on November 10, 1987 (Gong198, 117) 90Nu9575 delivered on September 13, 1991 (Gong191, 2554) 91Nu768 delivered on April 24, 192 (Gong192, 1750)

Plaintiff

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 92Gu1682 delivered on November 3, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant shall be examined.

In calculating gains from transfer based on the actual transaction price of assets in imposing capital gains tax, the actual transaction price refers to the whole of the amount actually agreed in return for payment at the time of the transaction. Thus, in a transaction with a juristic person, it is recognized as an exception to the principle of standard market price taxation, and thus it should be strictly interpreted. Thus, in a case where the actual transaction price in the transaction in question is not revealed, it is not allowed to estimate the value by analogy or suppression of other transaction, and it is also determined as a part of the actual transaction price, even if it is more favorable for the taxpayer than the actual transaction price, such calculation method is arbitrary, and it cannot be said that the actual transaction price is stipulated in the income tax law.

According to the records, the plaintiff and the non-party's acquisition of the land of this case shall be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price, which is a transaction with a juristic person. The acquisition price shall be the amount under the opening contract for real estate sale and acquisition price, and the transfer price shall be 495,000,000 won deposited in the plaintiff's account based on the financial account at the time of the plaintiff et al., and 412,290,000 won deposited in the non-party's account, co-owner, shall be paid as transfer price. The plaintiff and the non-party's share shall be regarded as equal, and the tax disposition of this case was imposed by calculating transfer gains by considering the above amount as the actual transfer price. Accordingly, the court below's macro evidence alone is insufficient to confirm the actual transfer price of the land of this case and there is no other evidence sufficient to confirm it, and the transfer price shall be determined on the basis of the real transfer price converted from the above financial account track pursuant to Article 15 (1) 15 (c) of the Enforcement Decree.

As long as the amount deposited in the financial account of the plaintiff et al. is the consideration for transfer and it is not confirmed by other evidence, the defendant's calculation of the actual transfer value according to the above method is not permissible in light of the legal principles as to the recognition of the actual transaction value as seen earlier. The court below's decision to the same purport is correct, and the records are examined, and there is no insufficient deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence pointing out

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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)