A disposition imposing capital gains tax on a person who has acquired a disposal of land without constructing a tenement house due to the aggravation of the financial situation of the other party who has entered into a partnership contract with a person who intends to build and sell a tenement house after purchasing the land;

In a case where the Plaintiff entered into a partnership business agreement with the Nonparty to jointly bear the expenses incurred in building and selling a tenement house on the ground, including the purchase price of the land purchased by the Nonparty and the Dong, and to distribute profits by jointly bearing the expenses incurred in building and selling the apartment house on the ground, and where an insolvent financial institution fails to build a tenement house and disposes of the land and received profits distribution, the imposition of capital gains tax on the premise that the Plaintiff purchased part of the land purchased

Article 23 of the Income Tax Act, Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu579 decided April 4, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant collected the above 1979.122 to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 7 non-party 1 and to pay 100 square meters out of the above 190,000 won to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 who purchased the above 18. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 9. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 9. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 9. The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 9. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 9. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 9. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 1050.

Therefore, the plaintiff concluded a partnership business agreement with the above non-party 1, etc. to jointly bear all the expenses incurred in building and selling a apartment house on the ground, including the land purchase price of this case purchased by the above non-party 1, and to distribute profits therefrom, and concluded a partnership business with the above non-party 1, etc. to build a apartment house and dispose of the land of this case and received profits distributed to the above non-party company. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff sold part of the land of this case purchased by the above non-party 1, etc. and disposed of the land of this case again from the above non-party 1, etc.,

Although the legal relation of the transfer of real estate in this case is clear that the court below did not make any judgment on this issue even though the transfer of the real estate in this case is an unregistered transfer asset, and the original adjudication that the transfer of the real estate in this case and the payment of the transfer income tax was made under the name of the above non-party 1 et al. after the transfer of the real estate in this case, and that the transfer income tax was performed without any basis is without any reason. Thus, as seen earlier, the court below did not take any measures of the court below as follows. First, since the plaintiff was found to have made investments in the business of constructing the apartment house on the land already acquired by the non-party 1 et al., and did not dispose of the real estate again after the purchase of the taxable real estate in this case, the issue of the transfer of the unregistered transfer property in this case cannot be said to be unlawful because it did not make any judgment on the issue of the transfer of the real estate in this case, and second, it cannot be said that there is no reason to affect the judgment below that the plaintiff acquired or paid the transfer income tax under the name of non-party 1.

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 Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)