Time of transfer of assets at the time of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982)

In a case where the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Nonparty on June 23, 1975 to sell KRW 22,360,000 for the land owned by him, and received KRW 10,160,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 2,10,000 for the same contract deposit, KRW 10,160,00 for the intermediate payment of KRW 10,000 for the same year, and issued all documents, such as a certificate of seal impression necessary for the registration of transfer, a certificate of sale, etc. for the registration of transfer, but the Nonparty, the buyer, had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future around February 1979 due to the delay in the procedure of the above Nonparty, the time of transfer of the said land shall be deemed to be the intermediate payment for the sale of KRW 2,10,00 for the same contract deposit (amended by Act No. 3576, Dec. 21, 1982); and

Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982)

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu783 Decided November 26, 1985

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1012 Decided March 6, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, based on macro-Evidence, concluded a contract to sell the above land at 22,360,00 won to the non-party 23 June 23 of the same year after purchasing the price of the land at 21,710,000 from Seongdong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) to 424.7 square meters (former lot number before the land substitution confirmation was 2.2 omitted) on May 197, 197, and completing the registration of ownership transfer in June 20 of the same year after purchasing the price of the land at 21,710,000. The non-party 2 was paid the down payment 2,10,000 won and the non-party 10,160,000 won after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 97, which was originally purchased by the non-party 2 to the above non-party 97, a new certificate of ownership transfer under the premise that the transfer registration was made by the non-party 97, a new certificate of ownership transfer.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified and there is no illegality that misleads the facts against the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)