(b) Relationship between Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982) and Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, which is the legal fiction of the time of acquisition of assets.

(c) The three-year starting point prescribed in Article 51 (3) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act;

B. The provisions concerning the transfer or acquisition time of Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982) are merely the date on which a part of the price other than the down payment is received in calculating transfer margin of assets, and it is merely the date on which the transfer or acquisition time of the assets is deemed as the date of acquisition in calculating transfer margin of assets. Thus, even in a case where it is intended to receive the benefit of reduction and exemption of transfer income tax or special surtax under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, it cannot be viewed as the basis

C. The three-year starting point under Article 51(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act shall be deemed to be when the transferee can exercise his ownership.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 63(1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and Article 51(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to reduce capital gains tax or special imposition tax pursuant to Article 63(1) of the same Act shall not be settled on the land first transferred, and since there are no special provisions regarding the time when the transferred land satisfies the above requirements, it shall be deemed that the transferee satisfies the requirements until he can actually exercise his right as the owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu612, Aug. 20, 195).

Therefore, the court below determined, based on its evidence, that the plaintiffs sold the real estate of this case to the Education Insurance Co., Ltd., the building was a building that was not used on the ground when it was sold to the non-party, but there was an agreement to remove the building under the responsibility of the plaintiffs and deliver the land. Accordingly, it determined that the plaintiffs all remove the building and completed the registration of destruction and loss, and that the land was delivered on October 4, 1982 and received the remaining price. In this regard, the above non-party company did not have any fixtures on the above land until the non-party company can actually exercise its right as the owner, and therefore, the above non-party company constructed the private house on the above land within three years from that time, and therefore, the plaintiffs can be refunded the tax amount under the above law. There was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as argued otherwise.

The provisions of Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act concerning the transfer or acquisition time of assets are deemed to be the date of receipt of part of the price other than the down payment in calculating the gains from transfer of the assets, and therefore, the transfer or acquisition time of the assets is merely deemed to be the date of acquisition of the assets. Thus, even in a case where it is intended to receive the benefits of reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax or special surtax under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, it cannot be viewed as the ground that the buildings under the Building Act on the transferred land should not be settled on the basis of the transfer date under the above Income Tax Act, and even in a case where it is intended to receive the benefits of reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax or special surtax, the starting point of three years under Article

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)