1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's land and building of this case owned by the plaintiff were invested in the non-party 1, Zone 1, Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives, which was authorized to establish the association on February 27, 1987 and the non-party 1, and the plaintiff's building was removed on June 16, 1987 as the redevelopment project was carried out. Meanwhile, when the construction of the above redevelopment project was completed in accordance with the management and disposal plan of the redevelopment Cooperatives, the plaintiff acquired the apartment unit right to acquire the ownership of 2, 39-type apartment units on February 13, 198, and the defendant transferred the above apartment unit 1 to the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who acquired the right to purchase the remaining apartment unit 1, to the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 196-party 1, respectively.

2. The right to purchase a site or building facility, the ownership of which is to be acquired in accordance with the management and disposal plan of the redevelopment cooperative by providing the previous land and building to the redevelopment cooperative and the right to purchase the site or building facility, is to be constituted "the right to acquire real estate" under Article 23 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act and Article 44 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, as determined by the court below, from the time when the ownership of the site or building facility was acquired as the redevelopment project was conducted, since the members of the redevelopment cooperative provided the previous land and building to the redevelopment cooperative, and the right to purchase the site or building facility is to be acquired in accordance with the management and disposal plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Nu7256, Feb. 14, 1995; 93Nu1633, Nov. 23, 1993).

However, according to the records, the management and disposal plan of the non-party redevelopment cooperative concluded with the above non-party and approved on November 18, 1991, which was after the plaintiff completed the registration of share transfer with respect to the building of this case. On the other hand, on August 16, 191, the plaintiff filed a registration of share transfer with the above non-party as well as the building of this case.

Therefore, since the management and disposal plan has not yet been authorized at the time when the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the non-party and made a transfer registration of shares in the land and buildings of this case, the plaintiff failed to acquire the right to sell the apartment to be constructed by the redevelopment association, the plaintiff should be deemed not to have transferred the right to sell the redevelopment association apartment, but to have transferred the land

Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Urban Redevelopment Act and failing to deliberate on the date of authorization of the management and disposal plan of this case, and by holding that the above transfer by the plaintiff is a kind of transfer of the right to acquire real estate, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment, which points out this issue.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)