Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11940 of Jun. 30, 1986) which provides for the requirements for exemption from income tax of land and buildings for factories transferred for the purpose of relocation, is interpreted as the time of transfer of transferred property which was registered for transfer before settlement of price

Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11940, Jun. 30, 1986) which provides for the requirements for exemption of income tax of land for factories and buildings transferred for the purpose of relocation shall be deemed the date of transfer as the date of actual transfer of the asset is the date of liquidation of the price of the asset, but in cases of registration of ownership transfer before the price is settled, the date of cause of registration of ownership transfer listed in

Articles 4(3) and 27 of the Income Tax Act; Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11940, Jun. 30, 1986); Article 53(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564, Dec. 31, 198)

Ministry of Justice Kim Yong-soo

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu245 delivered on June 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 19, 1986, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff sold the site and the building of the old factory of this case to the non-party Synam Co., Ltd. for 27,000,000 won for down payment of KRW 27,000,000 for the same day and the intermediate payment of KRW 45,000 for the remainder payment of KRW 7.30,000 for the same day and August 25, 1986. The court below recognized the fact that the transfer of ownership was completed on the same day on the same day as that of the above company on July 28, 1986 after the intermediate payment was made. Upon examining the evidence relations prepared by the court below in accordance with the records, the court below is just and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the fact that the judgment of evidence was made as of the lawsuit theory

The transfer under Articles 4(3) and 27 of the Income Tax Act and Article 53(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988) is the date of transfer, but the date of liquidation of the price of the asset is the date of transfer, but if the registration of ownership is made before the payment of the price, the date of transfer of ownership recorded in the register should be the date of transfer. Thus, in this case where the registration of ownership transfer has been made before the payment of part payments, the time of transfer of old factory site and building should be July 28, 1986, which is the date of registration of ownership transfer as stated in the register. Accordingly, the collection of transfer income tax exempted from the transfer of the previous factory site and building should be made the date of transfer of ownership as stated in the register.

The part of the judgment below which held that the time of transfer of the above old factory site and building was July 19, 1986, the sale contract date, is erroneous, or the conclusion that the above amendment Enforcement Decree is subject to the above amendment is not erroneous, and therefore, it is without merit.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)