Even if a substantial purchaser is a corporation, it cannot be viewed as a "transaction with a corporation" under Article 170 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Whether a transaction with a juristic person under Article 170 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) is not merely dependent on the name of the contract, but it should be determined by considering the actual amount of the contract, such as the party's intent or actual contributor of the purchase price. Thus, the fact is that a transaction with a juristic person is formally and formally concluded with an individual to avoid heavy taxation of transfer income tax in the course of transfer transaction with a juristic person, and where it is deemed that the intermediate transaction is the most unfair act, a substantial purchaser may be recognized as a juristic person. However, in the application of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is reasonable that a seller concludes a contract with an individual who knows that the actual purchaser is a juristic person or sells it to an individual who is not a juristic person.

Article 23(4) proviso of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 170(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2758 delivered on October 30, 1990 (Gong1990, 2467) 91Nu7262 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1992, 1059) 93Nu1213 delivered on May 25, 1993

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu18176 delivered on January 27, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in this case to the non-party on April 22, 198, and paid transfer income tax and defense tax based on standard market price, on December 23, 1989 again to the non-party joint stock company (hereinafter "non-party joint stock company"), the defendant's transfer of the real estate in this case to the non-party joint purchaser as the actual purchaser of the non-party joint purchase and sale of the real estate in this case is not recognized as the sale contract in this case's form of sale agreement or the actual sale of the real property in this case's agreement with the non-party joint purchaser, and it is not reasonable to recognize that the non-party joint purchaser's sale of the real property in this case's form of sale agreement or the actual sale of the real property in this case's agreement to the non-party joint purchase and sale of the real property in this case's form and form, or it is not reasonable to recognize that the non-party joint purchaser's sale of the real property in this case's form and form.

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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)