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

In calculating gains on transfer of assets at the time of enforcement of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), the time of transfer of assets shall be deemed the time of payment of intermediate payment pursuant to Article 27 of the same Act.

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

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu728 Delivered on February 26, 1985

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu341 delivered on September 3, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff sold the real estate of this case to the non-party Korea Urban Development Corporation on April 22, 1967 along with the land of two neighboring lots owned by the non-party for the construction site of Hyundai Apartment, and received the down payment of 15 million won on the day and the intermediate payment of 100 million won on May 10 of the same year, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 15, 1978, different from the sale date, unlike the sale date. Therefore, the transfer date of the land of this case shall be deemed to be the time of intermediate payment pursuant to Article 27 of the Income Tax Act effective at the time of transfer of the land of this case, and the national taxation claim of the State to impose and collect capital gains tax and defense tax shall be revoked by the final return of tax base of transfer income tax (amended by Act No. 3746 of Aug. 7, 1984) and the extinctive prescription of the transfer income tax of this case has already been completed for five years after the expiration of five years from the expiration date.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law 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 judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)