(a) Time of transfer of assets under the former Income Tax Act;

(b) Effects under the proviso of Article 170 of the former Enforcement Decree;

A. According to Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), the time of transfer of land shall be deemed to be the time of receipt of part payment, other than down payment, and it shall not be deemed that the registration of ownership transfer is completed before the intermediate payment is received.

B. The proviso of Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982) is not consistent with the provisions of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982) but is null and void since there are no grounds for delegation under the former Income Tax Act.

A. Article 27(b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982); Article 23(4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982); Article 45(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982); Article 170(1) proviso of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982)

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu728 delivered on February 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu662 delivered on February 28, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu593 delivered on February 26, 1985

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs' attorneys Lee Dong-dong

Dongjak-gu Head of Dongjak-General (titled before the change: South-west Head of the tax office)

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu487 delivered on February 27, 1987

All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the court below's decision is justified as follows: (a) the price for the instant land inherited by the deceased non-party 1's death is KRW 154,440,00; (b) 30,000,000; (c) the intermediate payment is paid in November 10 of the same year; and (d) the remainder 59,440,000 won is paid in December 31 of the same year; and (b) the remaining 59,440,00 won is sold by paying in December 31 of the same year; (c) the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the sale of 6.25 of the same year, which was 6.25 of the same year before the date of the intermediate payment; and (d) the fact that the intermediate payment was received on November 12 of the same year; and (e) there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as the part of the intermediate payment prior to the completion of the sale.

In addition, the proviso of Article 170 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982) does not coincide with the provisions of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by the Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), as well as the opinion of the party members that the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act should be null and void because there is no ground for delegation under the former Income Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu662, Feb. 28, 1984; 83Nu593, Feb. 26, 1985). In calculating the gains from the transfer of land of this case, the transfer value of the land of this case has been confirmed by inheritance, and thus it cannot be confirmed by both standard market prices, and there is no illegality in calculating the gains from transfer under Article 15 (15) of the Enforcement Decree.

In conclusion, the court below's judgment is not accepted because it is erroneous for the court below's whole right to evidence preparation and fact-finding, or it attacks the court below's judgment on the premise of its independent opinion on the time of transfer of assets under the former Income Tax Act and the effect of proviso of

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 Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)