Where the owner at the time of the enforcement of the former Income Tax Act receives only down payment and receives a promissory note to guarantee the payment of intermediate payment and balance, the time of transfer of such asset.

According to Articles 27 (1) and 27 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), the time of transfer or acquisition of assets shall be determined by concluding the relevant contract, i.e., the date of receipt or receipt of part of the price other than the down payment, i.e., the date of receipt or receipt of the intermediate payment, regardless of the time of transfer of ownership transfer. Thus, the time of transfer or acquisition is deemed to be the date of partial receipt of the above money under tax law, etc. regardless of the time of transfer of ownership transfer. Therefore, in the conclusion of a contract of purchase and sale of land, where the owner receives the down payment only, and the owner receives the promissory note issued by the purchaser as the date of payment of the intermediate payment and the balance payment in order to guarantee the buyer's performance of the intermediate payment and the balance, the obligation to pay the intermediate payment cannot be deemed extinguished only by the delivery of the promissory note itself, and

Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3376 of Dec. 21, 1982)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu602 delivered on March 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.

According to Articles 4(1)3, 4(3), and 23 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), applicable to this case, the term “transfer income” refers to the income accrued from the transfer of assets, such as land and buildings, and the term “transfer income” refers to the actual transfer of the ownership of the assets at a price. Thus, it is clear that the transfer income subject to transfer income tax refers to the income accrued from the transfer of land or buildings. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the time of transfer of assets, i.e., the time of transfer of assets, as a matter of principle, is the time when the value is paid in full. However, in calculating the transfer margin of assets, the transfer or acquisition time of assets is determined by concluding the relevant contract, i.e., the date of receipt of part of intermediate payment, other than the down payment, or the date of such transfer transfer or receipt, regardless of the effective date of transfer transfer or acquisition under the tax law.

Therefore, in the conclusion of a contract for the sale and purchase of land, if only the owner received the down payment and paid the intermediate payment and the balance to the transferee after the lapse of a certain period of time, the transfer time of the above ownership transfer does not have to have received any one copy of the price in addition to the down payment. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the transfer time of the land as the date of receipt of intermediate payment after the registration. Thus, the court below's decision that the transfer of the above real estate did not have any effect on the payment of the intermediate payment and the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff by November 14, 1981, when the sale and purchase contract for the land of this case was made on the same opinion that the buyer paid the down payment and completed the registration of transfer of the above land to the Youngdong Development Co., Ltd., which is the buyer on November 14, 1981, which is the date of payment of the intermediate payment and the balance payment, and that the transfer of the above real estate did not have any effect on the transfer of the above real estate by the date of payment of the intermediate payment.

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 Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)