(a) Article 45 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; or

B. In a case where a debtor and a person who establishes a disposal-type security transfer transfers real estate to a third party with the consent of a mortgagee, whether the secured party has income from transfer (negative) and Article 45(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

A. Article 45(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall not be construed as setting forth the criteria for recognition of a case where a taxpayer claims that he is a transfer of security, and the purport that a transfer of assets must be deemed to be a transfer of assets on the ground that he/she fails to meet the following requirements

B. If an obligor and a person who has established a disposal-type security transfer transfer transfer transfers the same to a third party with the consent of the mortgagee, the secured party is satisfied of the claim, so it cannot be deemed that the income from the transfer income tax has been generated, and in such a case, Article 45(2) of the Income Tax Act does not mean that the real estate is transferred to the secured party at the time of payment of the claim.

(b)Article 23(1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 45(1)(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8121 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991,1535) (Gong1991,1535). Supreme Court Decision 86Nu819 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987,754). 88Nu3734 delivered on June 28, 198 (Gong1988,1168), Supreme Court Decision 82Nu428 delivered on April 24, 1984 (Gong1984,907). 88Nu1902 delivered on July 11, 1989 (Gong1989,1260).

Plaintiff

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu487 delivered on October 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 45(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall not be construed as setting forth the criteria for recognition of a case where a taxpayer asserts that he is a security for transfer, and the purport that a transfer of assets must be deemed a transfer of assets on the ground that he fails to meet the requirements under each of the following subparagraphs. (See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3734 delivered on June 28, 198)

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case and acquired the right of transfer for disposition settlement, not transfer it to the non-party 2, who is the debtor, and the non-party 1, who is the debtor, transferred it to the non-party 2, who is the third party with the consent of the plaintiff who is the secured party, and that the plaintiff was satisfied with the claim, and that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have accrued the income of transfer income subject to transfer income tax. In this case, the provision of Article 45 (2)

In addition, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. There is no reason to argue.

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 Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)