Whether a real estate exchange contract is cancelled, but a bona fide third-party purchaser has not been reinstated to the registration of ownership transfer has income from the transfer of real estate.

If Party A entered into a contract with Party B for the exchange of real estate under its own possession and Party B completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said real estate, but Party B failed to perform its duty, and only the problem of restitution remains due to the cancellation of the said exchange contract due to its fraudulent cause, if Party B’s bona fide third purchaser of the said real estate fails to return the registration of ownership transfer to Party A, it cannot be deemed that Party A has income from the transfer of the said real estate.

Article 23 of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu752 delivered on November 27, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below decided that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 entered into a contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 to exchange the real estate of this case on March 13, 1981 and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate of this case on the ground that the non-party 1 did not perform all the obligations under the above exchange contract, and thus the above exchange contract was concluded by the non-party 1's fraud without intention and ability, and the above non-party 1's provisional registration of the right to claim the preservation of ownership transfer for the above real estate was filed against the non-party 1 and the above non-party 1, and won the above non-party 1 by filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the above real estate of this case in his name. However, the above non-party 2 was a bona fide third person with respect to the above non-party 2, and recognized the facts that the registration of ownership transfer was not returned to the plaintiff's name due to a mistake in the process of evidence.

In addition, if the facts are so true, the above exchange contract between the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 becomes invalid and becomes invalid, and only the issue of restitution remains. Therefore, the third-party purchaser in good faith with respect to the real estate in this case is not able to return the registration of transfer of ownership to the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have income from the transfer of the real

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the disposition of this case, which was based on the premise that the Plaintiff had an act of transferring the real estate in this case and an income accrued therefrom, was unlawful, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or incomplete deliberation, such

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)