beta
(영문) 대법원 2013. 10. 24. 선고 2012두14170 판결

대금을 청산하기 전에 소유권이전등기를 한 경우 등기접수일을 양도일로 보는 것임[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul High Court 2012Nu6751 (Seoul High Court 2012.05.30)

Case Number of the previous trial

2010u3067

Title

Where a registration of ownership transfer is made before the price is settled, the date of receipt of registration shall be deemed the transfer date.

Summary

Where a registration of transfer of ownership is made before settlement of the price, the date of receipt of the registration shall be deemed the date of transfer pursuant to Article 162 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and therefore the plaintiff shall be deemed three house owners

Cases

2012Du14170 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

Plaintiff-Appellant

Chapter AA

Defendant-Appellee

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu6751 Decided May 30, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

October 24, 2013

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The lower court acknowledged the facts that the first instance court rendered by citing the first instance judgment, and determined that the date of actual payment of the price for the third house of this case is insufficient to recognize as November 11, 2009, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and even if the date of payment is deemed as November 11, 2009, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the time when the Plaintiff acquired the third house of this case was the time of acquiring the third house of this case on November 4, 2009, which is the date of receipt of registration pursuant to Article 162(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no such a lack of sufficient evidence beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

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.