In determining whether the real estate transaction falls under the "when the real estate is acquired within one year and transferred within one year" under Article 72 (3) 5 of the Regulations on the Investigation of Property Tax, the date of acquisition and transfer where the date of settlement of price is not clear (=the date of registration)

In calculating gains on transfer of assets, the "the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant asset, which is the date of acquisition and transfer in principle" shall be interpreted to refer not to the date of the agreement for the payment of the balance under the sales contract, but to the date of actual payment of the balance. Thus, in determining whether the transaction of this case constitutes "when real estate is acquired within one year and transferred within one year" as provided in Article 72 (3) 5 of the Regulations on the Conduct of Property Tax Investigation and Management, it is legitimate to determine the timing of acquisition and transfer based on the date of the settlement of each price, although there is an agreement for the remaining payment stipulated in the sales contract, etc., but if the period from the date of registration to the date of receipt of the registration does not exceed one month, it is impossible to determine the timing of acquisition and transfer

Article 27 of the Income Tax Act, Article 53(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 198), Article 72(3)5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax (National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of Dec. 31, 198)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Kim Dong-dong Kim

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5074 delivered on January 16, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff acquired 1/2 of the 128-6 forest land in the Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do from the non-party 10 on December 10, 1986 (the 2.10.2.10.) on December 21, 1987, and transferred to the non-party 1, etc. on December 21, 1987, based on its adopted evidence, that the plaintiff's above real estate transaction does not constitute Article 72 (3) 5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation, which is No. 980 of the National Tax Service Directive, since the above transaction is considered as an speculation transaction falling under the above provision, and the tax disposition of this case in accordance with the actual transaction price is unlawful.

According to the records, the court below's determination of the above time of acquisition and transfer in the above real estate transactions by the plaintiff has become clear as the date of the cause of each transaction on the real estate injury. According to Article 27 of the Income Tax Act and Article 53 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 198), in calculating gains on transfer of assets, the time of acquisition and transfer shall, in principle, be the date of settlement of the price of the assets concerned, but if the price is not clear as the date of settlement or before settlement of the price, it shall be the date of receipt of registration recorded in the register: Provided, That if the period from the date of registration to the date of receipt of the price exceeds one month, "the date of settlement of the price above" shall be deemed to be the date of payment agreement stated in the sales contract, but it shall be interpreted as the date of payment of actual remaining amount within the date of acquisition and sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Nu176710 delivered delivered delivered, Apr. 111, 1987).

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)