(a) Whether the transfer of ownership for security corresponds to the transfer of assets subject to taxation of capital gains tax;

B. The meaning of Article 45(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

A. In a case where the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party’s real estate owned by the non-party was completed in the name of the plaintiff in order to secure the loan claims against the non-party, and the claim was repaid and returned to the non-party who is the debtor, such transfer of

B. Article 45(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9698, Dec. 31, 1979) provides for the standard of recognition in cases where a taxpayer asserts that he is a transfer of security, and it does not necessarily mean that the transfer of assets should be deemed in cases where a copy of a contract meeting the requirements under each subparagraph of the same paragraph is not attached to the final return

(a) Article 4 (3) of the Income Tax Act; Article 45 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9698 of Dec. 31, 1979)

(b) Supreme Court Decision 83Nu120 delivered on May 24, 1983

Plaintiff

Head of the Southern Mine District Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Gu57 delivered on April 12, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The records are examined. The court below's decision is just to the purport that the plaintiff's security of loan claim amounting to 25,314,100 won against the non-party 1, and after completing the registration of transfer under the name of the plaintiff on the ground of sale on June 18, 1979, the plaintiff received the principal and interest of the debt and cancelled the security, and deliver documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership to the above real estate. The non-party 1 sold this real estate to the non-party 2 on June 30, 1980 and completed the registration of transfer under the name of the non-party 2 on July 1 of the same year. Thus, the court below's decision that the above real estate was completed the registration of transfer under the name of the plaintiff for the purpose of securing the plaintiff's loan claim against the non-party 1 and returned it again to the above non-party 1, which cannot be viewed as the transfer of property, and it cannot be viewed as a violation of the rules of evidence or an error of mistake in the law.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)