[1] Time of transfer under the Income Tax Act of land sold through a voluntary auction procedure (=date of full payment of successful bid price)

[2] Whether Article 115 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates the date of public notice of the standard market price applicable (negative)

[1] In an auction to exercise a security right, the original owner shall lose his ownership when the successful bidder completely pays the successful bid price, and the successful bidder shall acquire ownership, and the time when the successful bidder completely pays the successful bid price under Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) and Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994), the time of transfer of assets and the date of settlement as the time of acquisition of the actual ownership that can file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer, unless there are special provisions, shall be the time of acquisition of the actual ownership that can file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer. In case of real estate sold through an auction to exercise a security right, the auction court shall not distribute the successful bid price to the mortgagee, but the date when the successful bidder completely pays the successful bid price to the auction court constitutes the date of transfer under the above Acts and subordinate statutes.

[2] In a case where land is acquired or transferred before the new standard market price is announced publicly under Article 115 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994), the standard market price shall be determined based on the immediately preceding standard market price, and the standard market price shall be determined differently from the basic date stipulated in Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14447 of Dec. 23, 1994), so it shall not be deemed as a violation of the principle of guaranteeing property rights under the Constitution or a violation of

[1] Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) (see Article 98 of the current Act), Article 53 (1) (see Article 162 (1)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [2] Article 60 (see Article 99 (1) of the current Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 115 (6) (see Article 164 (9)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467 of Dec. 31, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8934 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1606) 94Nu14827 delivered on May 9, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2136) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu228 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1924)

Plaintiff

Racing Head of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu1383 delivered on September 12, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In an auction to enforce a security right, the original owner shall lose his ownership and acquire the ownership of the successful bidder when the successful bidder completely pays the successful bid price. In the case of an auction to enforce a security right, the date of transfer of assets and the date of liquidation as stipulated in Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467, Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), the date of liquidation as the date of acquisition of de facto ownership that can claim a registration of ownership transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu8934, Apr. 27, 1993; 94Nu14827, May 9, 1995) is the date of sale of real estate to the auction court, not the date of liquidation of the successful bidder.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the transfer time of assets under the Income Tax Act, and the precedents of party members cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to be invoked in this case, unlike the case and purport. There is no reason to argue

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where land is acquired or transferred before a new standard market price is publicly notified under Article 115(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the standard market price shall be determined based on the immediately preceding standard market price, and the standard market price shall be determined differently from the basic date stipulated in Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14447 of Dec. 23, 1994), and it shall not be deemed to be a violation of the principle of property rights protection under the Constitution or a provision of invalidation in violation of the provisions of the mother law (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu28, May 28, 1997).

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)