(a) Initial date of extinctive prescription of transfer income tax imposition and collection right;

(b) Date commencing the extinctive prescription of the real estate speculation control tax;

(a) A tax claim on capital gains shall be subject to the same extinctive prescription, regardless of whether it is imposed or collected, and the extinctive prescription shall run from the day following the expiration of the final return period on the tax base of the transfer of real estate

B. According to Article 11 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Control of the Investment in Real Estate (repealed by Act No. 2690 of Dec. 21, 1974), a taxpayer of the control of the investment in real estate must report the tax base of the control of the investment in real estate within 30 days from the date of the transfer of the relevant real estate. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the control of the investment in real estate under the same Act shall run from the day after

A. Article 27(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes: Articles 9 and 11 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Control of Real Estate Investment (repealed by Act No. 2281, Jan. 13, 1971; Act No. 2690, Dec. 21, 1974)

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu572 delivered on December 26, 1984, 85Nu212 delivered on July 23, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 81Nu417 delivered on April 27, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Southern District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu659 delivered on April 13, 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.

1. In full view of the evidence, the court below acknowledged that on October 1, 1974, the Plaintiff sold 1, 2 real estate to Nonparty 1 at the original time; on October 15, 1974, the Plaintiff received intermediate payments; on May 1, 1975, the Plaintiff sold 3, 4 real estate at the original time to Nonparty 2; on May 20, 1975, the intermediate payments were paid; on September 27, 1976, the Plaintiff sold 5,6,7, and 8 real estate at the original time to Nonparty 3; on November 30, 1976, the Plaintiff received intermediate payments; on December 21, 1974, the court below rejected the aforementioned special measures on the suppression of real estate speculation (amended by Act No. 2690, Dec. 21, 1974; on December 27, 1974; on the receipt of part of the intermediate payments under Article 125 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1975).16).2 of the Income Tax Act.

2. A party member held that a taxation claim on capital gains shall be subject to the same extinctive prescription, regardless of whether it is imposed or collected, and that the extinctive prescription shall run from the day following the expiration of the final return period on the tax base of the transfer, in the case of the transfer of real estate identical to this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu572, Dec. 26, 1984; 85Nu212, Jul. 23, 1985).

In addition, according to Article 11 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Speculation, a taxpayer of the tax base of the tax base of the tax base of the tax base of the tax base of the tax base of the real estate speculation should report within 30 days from the date of transfer of the relevant real estate. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the tax base of the tax base of the tax base speculation under the same Act should be

In addition, the decision of the court below is just in holding that the extinctive prescription of each of the above real estates against the plaintiff has expired on the date five years after the expiration of the above tax base return, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of a tax claim, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of a tax claim, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of a tax claim (the date of the decision of September 30, 1983) by the party members since the date of the final return of transfer margin or the final return of transfer margin or the registration of transfer thereof was made late after January 20, 1978, and thus the defendant was virtually unable to know the existence of a tax claim as to capital gains, or was unable to exercise its rights.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)