[방위세부과처분취소][공1987.7.15.(804),1097]
(a) Where real estate is transferred to a local government to a school site, the time of such transfer;
(b) In the case above, if the local government has paid the compensation for losses to the mortgagee, whether the owner of the real estate has any income;
A. In cases where real estate is transferred to a local government as a site for school facilities under the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Losses, even if such real estate was actually designated as a site for school facilities by a local government’s announcement, such circumstance alone alone cannot be deemed the transfer date, and it is reasonable to deem that the transfer date is the transfer date.
B. In the above case, even if the local government paid compensation for losses to the mortgagee of the above real estate, it cannot be said that there was no income since the owner of the above real estate gains financial gains that exempt him from the same amount of debt as the mortgagee of the above right to collateral security.
Articles 27(1) and 23 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982)
Plaintiff
Head of Namgu Tax Office
Daegu High Court Decision 86Gu13 delivered on November 28, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, even if the plaintiff's disposal of the above real estate was lawful, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above disposition of 860 square meters ( Address 2 omitted), 43 square meters ( Address 3 omitted), 188 square meters, and 188 square meters ( Address 4 omitted) on August 18, 1959, but did not transfer the above real estate to Gyeongbuk-do school facilities under the provisions of the Special Act on Acquisition of Land and Compensation for Loss, the court below rejected the above disposition of 860 square meters on November 13, 1982 on the ground that the defendant's disposal of the above real estate was not based on the same disposition of 190 square meters and the above disposition of 200 won on the ground that the above disposition of 190 square meters and the above disposition of 200 won on the ground that the above disposition of 20th anniversary of the above disposition of 1982.
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 Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)