[양도소득세부과처분취소][공1985.9.1.(759),1135]
In a case where the remaining price is paid without any separate payment of the intermediate payment in addition to the down payment under the real estate transfer contract at the time of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), the time of the transfer of the above
At the time of enforcement of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), the remaining amount shall be paid in full without paying the intermediate payment in addition to the down payment in a real estate transfer contract, and if the payment date is specified in the contract, the payment date of the remaining amount shall be deemed the transfer or acquisition date pursuant to Article 27 (1) and (3) of the said Act.
Articles 27(1) and 27(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982)
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1
Head of Southern District Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu511 delivered on January 23, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney is examined.
According to the provisions of Article 27 (1) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), in calculating gains on transfer of assets, the date of transfer or acquisition of assets shall be the date when the relevant contract is concluded and part of the price other than the down payment is received or received. The date of such receipt or receipt shall be the date determined in the transfer contract, etc. but if the date is not specified, it shall be 30 days from the date of conclusion of the transfer contract if the transfer contract is not specified. Thus, in the relevant transfer contract, the remaining payment shall be paid in full without paying the down payment, in addition to the down payment, and if the date of payment is specified in the contract, the date of
In this case, the plaintiff and the non-party in this case entered into a sales contract with the non-party in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as of October 17, 1979, it is recognized that the sales price is KRW 77,50,000, contract deposit is KRW 7,800,000 as at the time of original adjudication, and the contract deposit is at KRW 7,80,000, and the date of payment is agreed on December 15, 1979 without fixing the date of payment of intermediate payment. Thus, the court below held that the decision of the court below is just in determining that the contract was the time of acquisition of assets as stipulated in Article 27 (1) of the former Income Tax Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the interpretation of the Income Tax Act or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the
The question is nothing more than criticism of the above judgment from other points of view, and the Supreme Court of the lawsuit is not justified because the precedent supporting the issue is not a precedent.
2. We examine the second ground for appeal.
The issue is that the decision of the court below on the acquisition time of the asset in this case should be viewed as April 4, 1980, unlike the decision of the court below. Thus, as seen in the preceding paragraph, the decision of the court below on the acquisition time of the asset in this case is without merit.
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)