[1] The elements of "transfer subject to deferred payment" under Article 51 (6) of the former Income Tax Act

[2] In a case where the period until the date of payment of the last installment comes to fall short of two years due to the renewal of the payment method in a sales contract on condition of deferred payment, whether the agreement on condition of deferred payment changed to the ordinary sale and purchase (negative)

[1] According to Article 53 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14083 of Dec. 31, 1993), the time of acquisition and transfer of assets shall be the first installment payment date in the case of annual payment under Article 51 (6) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by the Act No. 4661 of Dec. 31, 1993). According to Article 108 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the transfer of assets not falling under the installment sale, which are imported in accordance with individual terms and conditions for the transfer of assets by three or more installments among those imported in accordance with monthly, yearly, or other installment payments, and the period from the day following the date of delivery to the date of the last installment payment of the assets concerned shall be two or more years, and the date of the first installment payment as well as the date of the first installment payment between the date of delivery and the date of delivery and the date of the last installment payment.

[2] Where there was a re-agreement on the method of payment of the remainder, such as passing the payment period on the time of the seller's circumstances, while the payment was performed according to a sales contract for a deferred payment, this is merely a partial change in the method of payment of the remainder, and thus, even if the period until the date of payment of the last installment falls short of 2 years, it does not change the first condition of payment to the ordinary transaction.

[1] Article 51 (6) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4661 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 53 (1) 3 (see current Article 162 (1) 3), Article 108 (2) (see current Article 78 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083 of Dec. 31, 1993) / [2] Article 51 (6) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4661 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 53 (1) 3 (see current Article 162 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act), Article 108 (2) (see current Article 78 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083 of Dec. 31, 1993)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6598 delivered on April 28, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15070 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2054) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3527 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3445)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorneys Jeong Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of Gangnam Tax Office et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu8269 delivered on April 29, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the remaining KRW 10,32,00,00 on March 5, 198 and September 27, 198 as follows: the plaintiffs acquired the land of this case jointly at the ratio of shares indicated in the separate sheet of co-owners on August 2, 1993; KRW 10,32,00,00 on the land of this case; KRW 2,30,00,00 on the date of the contract; KRW 30,00 on the remaining 9,00 on the land of this case; KRW 10,90,000,000 on the 19,000,000 on the 209,000,000 won on the 19,000,000,000 won on the 209,000,000 won on the 19,000,000 won on the 196,00.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the above recognition and determination by the court below is deemed legitimate, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 53(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the "Enforcement Decree"), in calculating gains on transfer of assets, the time of acquisition and transfer shall be the first installment payment date in the case of annual payment terms provided for in Article 51(6) of the Act. Under Article 108(2) of the Enforcement Decree, the transfer of assets that do not fall under installment sales, with annual payment terms under Article 51(6) of the Act, is the transfer of assets that are not subject to installment payments in three or more installments, and the sales amount or income amount has been imported in accordance with individual terms and conditions for payment in installments, and the period from the date following the delivery period to the date of the last installment payment in 2 or more years, which is 9 years or more, shall be the starting date of the delivery of the relevant assets to the date of the last installment payment in 97 years or more, and it shall include the date of the last installment payment in 97 years or 97 days of delivery.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the transfer of the land of this case constitutes the transfer of deferred payment, since the contract of this case on August 2, 1993 was received in installments not less than three times, and the non-party, the purchaser of this case, agreed to have the right to use the land of this case after the date of the contract of this case was concluded, so it is possible to deliver the land of this case on the same day. Since the period from the next day to the date of the payment of the final installment under the above transaction agreement falls under not less than two years, and the advance payment period is merely a change in the payment method due to the plaintiffs' reasons around May 2, 1995, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, such as misapprehension of legal principles as to the transfer

Other grounds of appeal are that a large number of transfers should be made under a uniform terms and conditions in order to constitute a transfer subject to the foregoing deferred terms and conditions, but this cannot be accepted as a assertion without any ground contrary to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)