[1] The case holding that in the case where the owner of a tenement house provides a site and the construction business operator constructs a new apartment house by investing the construction cost, etc. on his/her own responsibility, and one household unit of a new house and concludes a contract with the contents that the construction business operator will dispose of the remaining house, the above contract is deemed as a partnership business contract between the owner of the apartment house and the

[2] Whether an investment in kind in a cooperative's assets constitutes a transfer as a taxable cause for capital gains tax (affirmative), and the time of such transfer

[1] The case holding that in the case where the owner of a tenement house provided a site and the construction business operator newly constructed a tenement house by investing the construction cost, etc. on his/her responsibility, but one household of a new house provided to the existing owner and the construction business operator entered into a contract to dispose of the remaining house, the above contract is deemed as a partnership business contract between the owner of the apartment house and the construction

[2] The assets invested in the partnership are separate assets that are separate from the assets of the investors, and the investors acquire the status of the partners in return for the investment. Thus, the assets invested in kind in the partnership constitutes the transfer that is a taxable cause of capital gains tax, as the assets are transferred for the consideration of the assets, and the time of transfer is when the assets are transferred for investment in kind to the partnership.

[1] Article 703 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 26-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4810 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 4 (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 23 (1) 1 (see current Article 94 (1) 1), Article 27 (see current Article 98)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu392 delivered on December 26, 1984 (Gong1985, 270), Supreme Court Decision 84Nu549 delivered on February 13, 1985 (Gong1985, 444), Supreme Court Decision 85Nu339 delivered on November 12, 1985 (Gong1986, 555), Supreme Court Decision 86Nu771 delivered on April 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 910), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu12848 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 304)

Plaintiff (Attorney Byung-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu2114 delivered on June 7, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below is just in holding that the 16 owner of the old ○○ House, including the plaintiff, etc., was a partnership contract between the plaintiff et al. and the non-party who was the construction business operator for housing reconstruction on March 9, 191; the owners including the plaintiff et al. provided the land of the above apartment house; the non-party et al. invested the construction cost, etc. on their own responsibility and newly constructed 3 households of the above apartment house; the owners of the above 16 owners entered into a contract with the non-party et al. to own one unit of new house and dispose of the remainder; and this contract is a partnership contract between the plaintiff et al. and the non-party, and there is no violation of

2. The assets invested in a cooperative consisting of separate assets separate from the assets of the investor and the investors acquire the status of the partner as the consideration for the investment. Thus, an investment in kind in a cooperative constitutes a transfer of assets, which is a taxable cause of capital gains tax, and the time of such transfer constitutes an investment in kind (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu339, Nov. 12, 1985; 86Nu771, Apr. 28, 1987).

The court below is just in holding that the Plaintiff concluded a partnership agreement with the Nonparty and recognized that the Plaintiff owned the instant land shares were invested, and that the transfer period was expired by deeming the transfer period as the date of conclusion of the partnership agreement, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal is not acceptable.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)