Whether the transfer time of ownership transfer should be deemed in cases where the transfer of assets under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978) and the date of receipt of part payments is unclear (negative)

Under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978), the date when the assets are transferred and the date when the actual intermediate payment is received or the date when the contract is agreed to receive the intermediate payment is transferred, and even if the date when the intermediate payment was received but it is not obvious, the date of the receipt agreement is deemed the transfer date, and it is not the transfer registration date.

Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of December 5, 1978)

[Attachment]

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu11703 delivered on March 2, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

The main text of Article 27(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2705 of Dec. 24, 1974; Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978) provides that the date of transfer or acquisition of assets shall be the date when the transfer or acquisition of assets concludes the relevant contract and receives part of the price other than the down payment, and that part of the price means the intermediate payment other than the down payment and cash or valuables of a similar nature. Paragraph 2 of Article 2 provides that Paragraph 3 of the Income Tax Act provides that the date of receipt or receipt under Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of the same Article shall be 30 days from the date of conclusion of the transfer contract if the date of receipt of the intermediate payment or the date of receipt of the intermediate payment shall be the date of receipt of the intermediate payment, but it shall not be deemed that the date of receipt of the intermediate payment is the date of transfer registration, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the ownership transfer registration was unlawful under the premise that the transfer registration of new part payment was made by the Plaintiff 16.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)