logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017. 04. 28. 선고 2017두30771 판결
매도인 자신이 매매목적물을 담보로 대출받은 돈을 매매잔대금으로 충당하고 이자를 지급하였다는 주장만으로 그 날을 잔금청산일로 볼 수 없음[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-46320 ( November 16, 2016)

Title

The seller’s assertion that he/she received a loan on the security of the object of sale can not be seen as the date of settling the balance solely on the ground that he/she paid the interest.

Summary

Inasmuch as the seller’s receipt of the outstanding purchase price of the borrowed money by providing the object of his/her purchase and sale as collateral fails to submit other evidence as to whether the outstanding payment is made or not, even if the purchaser bears interest on the loan, it cannot be deemed the date of the settlement of the outstanding balance.

Related statutes

Article 88 (Definition of Transfer)

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act Article 162 (Time of Transfer or Acquisition)

Cases

2017Du3071 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff

○ ○

Defendant

○ Head of tax office

Imposition of Judgment

on October 28, 2017

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, or are not reasonable [the conclusion that the court below's decision is justifiable solely on the grounds that the plaintiff committed active acts for tax avoidance purposes, such as preparing a sales contract stating false purchase price in the name of Kim Jong-sung and filing a false report on capital gains tax, etc.] In light of the above, it is justified that the ten-year exclusion period of imposition is applicable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du10519, Oct. 11, 2013; 2013Du7667, Dec. 12, 2013). The grounds of appeal as to the transfer period are not only the issues concerning the fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority of the court below, but also the remaining grounds

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the above Act by the assent of all participating Justices.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow