Whether a disposition imposing capital gains tax on the first transferor under the premise that the purchaser of the real estate who acquired the ownership by the method of intermediate omission is the final acquisitor;

If Eul purchased the land of this case from Gap and sold it again to Byung, and the registration was made directly in front of Byung by an intermediate omission, the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the real estate of this case on the premise that Byung is not the purchaser from Gap but Byung is illegal.

Article 23 of the Income Tax Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu118 delivered on December 12, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party 1 on March 1, 1978 and sold it to the non-party 2 on September 14, 1979, and the non-party 2 sold it again to the non-party 3 on November 7, 1979, and the registration was made directly by the non-party 3 on the following day, and held that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the purchaser of the land of this case is not the non-party 2 but the non-party 3. In light of the records, the above recognition and the judgment are legitimate, and it cannot be said that there was any error in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the argument, or

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 Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)