Whether "transfer" can be made where a person, who has received the registration of ownership transfer of real estate for the purpose of security, has returned the registration to the original owner by satisfaction of his/her bonds, and the real estate investment suppression tax may be levied.

If a person, who received the registration of ownership transfer of real estate for the purpose of security, is extinguished due to the bond repayment, and the object of security is returned to the name of the original owner again, it shall not be deemed as “transfer” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Real Estate Investment, and thus, real estate speculation suppression is not imposed.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate (Abolition)

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

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 71Gu309 delivered on July 18, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff, a middle-tin exporter, entered into a contract with the plaintiff to pay 1.5 million won in advance to the non-party 1, who is a middle-tin exporter, and the above non-party 1 continued to supply tin for one year, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale in the name of the plaintiff 8th class 1 unit 6th class of forest land in Gwangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do as the claim security for deposit, but such advance payment was made in full, and the plaintiff should again return the ownership of the above forest again to the above non-party 1. It was confirmed that the plaintiff died without the heir of March 13, 1969, the ownership transfer registration was completed within the meaning of return to the non-party 2, who was designated before the birth, and therefore, the court below's judgment was just in light of the above legal principles as to the transfer of real estate under the premise that the right to secure the payment of deposit was extinguished as a bond, and thus, it cannot be viewed as unlawful in light of the principle of real estate taxation law.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)