Seoul Administrative Court 2008Gudan12019 ( August 11, 2009)

Cho High Court Decision 2008west0590 (No. 21, 2008)

Whether the classification of the transfer value by asset is unclear in case of a blanket transfer;

The fact that the owner of land and a building appears to have arbitrarily set the sales price for each asset on the grounds of convenience, etc. while transferring each real estate between different mother and mother land, and that the method and timing for payment of the actual sales price are different from that of each sales contract, and it cannot be deemed that the relevant

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition of the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2007 by KRW 68,350,810 and KRW 1,308,480 shall be revoked.

The reasons for the judgment of the first instance are reasonable, and therefore, it is cited as the reasons for the judgment of this case in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

As the grounds for appeal of this case, the Plaintiff argues that the disposition of this case is unlawful since Article 100 (2) of the Income Tax Act, which is the basis for the disposition of this case, does not stipulate any criteria for "when the distinction between the value of land, building, etc. is unclear" and thus, the judgment is entrusted exclusively to the arbitrary judgment of the tax authorities. Thus, the above provision of the law is unconstitutional since it is contrary to Article 23 (1) of the Constitution that provides for the guarantee of property rights of the people and Article 59 of the Constitution

In light of the legislative intent of the relevant statutes and the overall system light, etc., if the meaning of the provisions concerning taxes and charges can clearly be determined in light of the legislative intent of the relevant statutes and the overall system light, etc., it cannot be said that the provision on taxes and charges is unconstitutional because of lack of clarity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9884, Oct. 26, 2007), since the provisions on taxes and charges may cause arbitrary interpretation and enforcement of the imposing authority if they are excessively abstract and ambiguous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du9884, Oct. 26, 2007).

On this premise, the standard of determining whether Article 100 (2) of the Income Tax Act alleged by the plaintiff violates the Constitution is not specifically presented, although the standard of determining "where the distinction between the value of land, building, etc. is unclear" is not specifically presented, in light of the purpose of legislation and the contents of the provision and the context of the provision, the value of the land and the building is not determined separately when acquiring or transferring the land or the building in a lump sum, or the value of documentary evidence, such as a written contract, is classified. However, the cases falling under the above provision can be sufficiently divided through interpretation and the meaning of the provision can be clearly clarified, in light of each objective value, transaction purpose, publicly notified price, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.