Whether the act of transferring the ownership transfer in the name of a secured party can be deemed to have been committed by appropriating the real estate so appropriated for repayment if it was not made again after the principal registration of the ownership transfer in the name of the secured party has been made again in the name of a third party, but the provisional registration has

Even if a provisional registration security holder completed a principal registration of transfer of ownership in his name pursuant to the reconciliation clause prior to the filing of a lawsuit and again made a provisional registration to a third party on the ground of a sales contract, it does not go through a settlement procedure between the creditor and the creditor. If the market price of the real estate at the time of principal registration exceeds twice the principal and interest of the principal and interest, the real estate is provided as a debt security, and is not yet appropriated for the repayment of the obligation, and therefore, the transfer is not conducted.

Article 23 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu699 Decided April 10, 1984 delivered on October 10, 1984

Plaintiff

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu160 delivered on January 31, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the above provisional registration on April 27, 1979, the plaintiff's disposal of 100,000 won from the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as interest rate of 15% per annum on February 26, 1980, and completed provisional registration of preservation of the non-party's right to claim transfer of ownership as to the real estate of this case on the same day in order to secure and borrow 1,00,000 won from the non-party 1 and the non-party 2. The above non-party's disposal of the real estate of this case was just in 15,00,000 won on February 4, 1980, and the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not have any error of law as to the execution of the principal registration procedure based on the above provisional registration and the non-party 2's disposal of the real estate of this case's transfer of the above real estate for 1980 times.

The issue is groundless.

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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)