Where a registration of transfer of ownership has been completed in advance at the time of the enforcement of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), the time of transfer or acquisition of such assets, if any.

Even in cases where a sales contract for real estate was concluded at the time of the enforcement of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), and the registration of ownership transfer was made before an intermediate payment was received, it cannot be said that the date of the registration of ownership transfer on the register is the time of acquisition or transfer immediately, and the date of receipt or transfer of the intermediate payment should still be deemed the date of acquisition or transfer.

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

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu303 Decided March 10, 1981; 83Nu60 Decided August 23, 1983; 84Nu64 Decided May 9, 1984

Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Hong-san et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Nu635 delivered on October 26, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 27(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576, Dec. 21, 1982) provides that the time of transfer or acquisition of assets shall be the date when the assets are transferred or received part of the consideration other than the down payment after concluding the relevant contract, and Article 27(2) provides that the time of transfer or acquisition of assets shall be the date when part of the consideration is received, other than the down payment, and the cash or valuables of a similar nature other than the down payment, shall be the cash or valuables similar thereto. Thus, in cases where a transfer registration was completed before an intermediate payment is received under such legal system and the relevant contract is concluded and an intermediate payment is completed before the intermediate payment is received, it shall not be deemed that the date of transfer registration on the register is the date of acquisition or transfer, and it shall be deemed that the date of receipt or receipt of the intermediate payment is the date of such acquisition or transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu30303, Aug. 23, 1983Nu64, May 84, 1984).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff acquired ownership of the site as of April 30, 1964, but sold the site as 933,460,000 won to the non-party Housing Construction Co., Ltd. on April 14, 1981 and received 150,000,000 won as down payment and 150,000,000 won as part payment as of July 20, 1981, and paid 633,460,000 won as of December 31, 1981. The above non-party company received ownership transfer registration of the above site as of June 30, 1981 in order to obtain a preferential building permit, and thus, it is just in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the transfer of part payment and remaining amount from June 3, 1981 to June 30, 198, the plaintiff's right to claim the intermediate payment from the non-party company 20160, 1980.6.08.

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 Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)