Whether the target real estate is a property transferred for security under Article 42 of the Framework Act on National Taxes where a principal registration based on the provisional registration has been made after the provisional registration was made for the purpose of security and the principal registration was made pursuant to the reconciliation clause prior to filing

If a provisional registration is made for the purpose of securing a claim and the principal and interest are repaid within a certain time after the provisional registration is made, the above provisional registration shall be cancelled, and if a settlement is made before the principal and interest are to be performed for the purpose of security on the basis of the above provisional registration but the debtor fails to repay the principal and interest, and the principal registration based on the provisional registration is completed pursuant to the settlement prior to the lawsuit, the above transfer registration of ownership is a transfer for security within a weak meaning, which is planned for the so-called settlement procedure to exercise a security right on the above claim. Thus, the above real estate constitutes a so-called transfer for security property as provided in Article 42 of the Framework Act

[Binding Force Judgment: Discarding this Judgment by this Court Decision 83.13.13.88]

Article 42 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 372 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu66 delivered on October 11, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Nu88 delivered on September 13, 1983

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu32 delivered on October 25, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The court below held on July 26, 1979 that interest rate of KRW 20,00,00 for the non-party shall be five percent per month, and that the non-party agreed on October 26 of the above year with a maturity of 10.26, and that the non-party did not pay the above principal and interest by the repayment date, and that the non-party did not pay the above 28,000,000 won to the non-party on June 17, 1981, the above provisional registration was cancelled, and that the non-party did not pay the above 19,000 won to the non-party on the above real estate for the purpose of this case's provisional registration, and that the non-party's obligation to pay the above 19,000,000 won to the non-party on the real estate under the above provisional registration should be revoked for the purpose of this case's provisional registration and that the non-party's obligation to pay the above 1,000,0000 won for the above provisional registration.

However, Article 42 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "property transferred for security" means the property substantially becoming the object of security for claims to the transferor when a taxpayer transfers the property under a contract between the parties concerned, and according to the facts established by the court below, the above real estate which completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration under the plaintiffs' name is a property transferred for security in a weak sense, as stipulated in the above reconciliation clause which is based on the above reconciliation clause, and thus, it constitutes so-called property transferred for security which is substantially an object of security for claims against the plaintiff under Article 42 of the above Act, unless there are other special circumstances, such as the settlement procedure is completed, unless there is any special circumstance such as the settlement procedure is completed. However, the court below determined that the above real estate cannot be deemed as being offered for security for claims by exercising the above non-party's principal and interest on the ground that it is merely a step to satisfy the secured claims by exercising the security right without any other special circumstances. It is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the property transferred for security, or inconsistent with the reasoning or insufficient reasons.

The Supreme Court Decision 83Nu88 delivered on September 13, 1983 ruled that the party members in conflict with this opinion will be discarded.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee Jong-hwan, Kim