In the case of deferred sales, the time of transfer;

In compiling the facts, it is reasonable to regard the transfer as the date of the first installment payment as the date of the first installment payment.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the imposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1 through 5, Gap evidence 5-1 through 6, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 5, 6-1, 2-1, and 2, and there is no other counter-proof.

① On March 5, 1985, the Plaintiffs jointly purchased and owned 1,120.5 square meters from 943-24 to 943-25 to 657.6 square meters from the same on September 27, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “land of this case”) in proportion to each co-owned share as indicated in the separate co-owner’s share list. On September 8, 1993, the Plaintiffs transferred each share to Nonparty Park Woo, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of each share on June 2, 1995, and calculated the transfer income amount as the standard market price after calculating the transfer income amount on the date of transfer registration of ownership of each of the above shares as the date of transfer, and paid each transfer income tax, such as the return and payment of the transfer income tax as stated in the separate sheet.

② After that, the Defendants considered the time of transfer of the real estate of this case as the standard market price on August 3, 1993 and calculated the transfer income amount at the time of the first installment payment on the ground that the transfer of the land of this case was a deferred condition transaction under Article 51(6) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4661, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same) and the first installment payment was made on August 3, 1993, the transfer date of the real estate of this case was considered as August 3, 1993, and accordingly calculated the transfer income amount at the standard market price, and accordingly calculated each transfer income tax against the plaintiffs as of April 16, 196, the above return and payment amount of each transfer income tax against each of the plaintiffs was deducted from the above tax amount to each of the plaintiffs, and issued each disposition imposing the transfer income tax

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendants asserted that the disposition of this case was lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, and the plaintiffs asserted that the transfer of the land of this case does not constitute the deferred deferred sale on the following grounds, but the transfer time of the land of this case is not the date of transfer registration, and the transfer income tax should be revoked on August 3, 1993, not the date of transfer registration.

① On August 2, 1993, the Plaintiffs (However, Plaintiff Kim Jong-soo’s agent) concluded a sales agreement on the instant land with the Nonparty 1, 220,000, with the intention to newly construct and sell the office building on the instant land, and established conditions after entering into this sales agreement. The Plaintiffs agreed to sell the instant land at KRW 10,220,000,00, in consideration of the Plaintiff’s financial burden due to the decline in the real estate competition in the said office-to-be located on the instant land, with the remainder payment due to the delayed payment date, to pay the remainder to the said office-to-be a part of the new building that is to be newly constructed on the instant land adjacent to the instant land, and received KRW 2,32,00,00,000, which is equivalent to the down payment amount for the sales contract to be entered into as security for the implementation of the said sales agreement, from the above office-to-date.

② On August 3, 1993 following the date of the conclusion of the said transaction agreement, the Plaintiff Kim Jong-soo, who did not directly participate in the said agreement, could not conclude the said agreement, and accordingly, raised an objection that cannot be recognized as the said agreement. The Plaintiffs could not enter into the sales agreement with the said Park Jong-dae on the terms of the remainder payment stipulated in the said agreement, and could not withhold the conclusion of the long-term sales contract. As such, the Plaintiffs changed the terms and conditions of payment of part of intermediate payments and the remainder on the terms and conditions of land transaction permission, and strongly requested to enter into the sales contract before the end of the said new construction project. The Plaintiffs and the said Park Jong-dae, as they were to comply with the said terms and conditions for the smooth progress of the said new construction project. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the said Park Jong-dae concluded the following sales contract on August 3, 1993 on the terms and conditions of land transaction permission for the instant land, and prepared the sales contract, which was retroactively written on August 2, 1993.

The sales contract amounting to KRW 2,332,00,000 shall be appropriated as KRW 2,332,00,000,000 on August 2, 1993, which was paid to the plaintiffs by the above Park Jong-dae on August 2, 1993.

(b) The amount of KRW 4,00,000, which was agreed to pay on September 2, 1993 from the above trade agreement as the first intermediate payment, is paid on the date of this sales agreement, and thus, the contract shall not be written therein.

The first intermediate payment of KRW 1,000,000 shall be paid on August 2, 1994.

The remaining amount of 2,888,000,000 won shall be paid on June 20, 1995, and the written contract shall state this as the secondary intermediate payment, and it shall state that the above amount of 4,000,000,000 won paid as part of the purchase price on the date of this contract shall be remaining and paid on August 2, 1995, which is the scheduled date of payment of capital gains tax.

The transfer income tax and resident tax on the transfer of the above land shall be borne by the party, separate from the above purchase price, but the contract shall not be written in consideration of the fact that this contract is to be used as an approval seal contract.

㉳ 이 사건 토지의 사용권은 이 매매계약체결 이후 위 박순석이 가지되, 원고들은 위 계약금 지불후 30일내에 지장물을 철거하여 위 박순석의 사용에 지장이 없도록 인도한다.

③ On August 2, 1994, the Plaintiffs received respectively the above gold 4,00,000,000,000 won as of the date of the above contract, and KRW 1,000,000 for the first intermediate payment as of August 2, 1994, and KRW 2,88,000,000 for the remainder payment as of June 2, 1995, which was actually written in the above sales contract, but was actually written in the second intermediate payment. The said promissory note was paid and received at KRW 2,58,00,000 for cash as of June 20, 1995, and the face value as of June 20, 1995 as of June 20, 195.

④ From the purport of securing the payment of capital gains tax, etc., on June 2, 1995, the Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 4,000,000,000, which was the date of June 2, 1995 as of August 25, 1995, were deposited in the Plaintiffs. The said Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 2,024,917,874, August 24, 1995, were collected from the Plaintiffs, and the said Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 2,00,00,000, which was the date of payment as of October 16, 195, were stored in the Plaintiffs. The said Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 303,293,790, Oct. 16, 1995; the said Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 303,293,000,000,000 and KRW 1364,00,00.

⑤ On September 2, 1993, the delivery date of the instant land, which had been leased to another party, had been delivered to the same person on or around September 2, 1993, and thereafter, the land transaction permission for the said sales contract was granted on or after the same month.

(6) Therefore, the transfer of the instant land is not based on the above sales agreement as of August 2, 1993, but was made by the sales agreement as of August 3, 1993. According to the above sales agreement as of August 3, 1993, first, in addition to the down payment on the date of the contract, 4,000,000 won shall be paid only once after the intermediate payment of KRW 1,88,000,000 shall be paid after the date of the contract, and thus, in full payment of KRW 2,88,00,00 in addition to the down payment, it shall not be paid in accordance with the payment method in installments for three or more occasions, and second, inasmuch as the last installment from September 2, 1993, which is the date of delivery of the instant land, which is the object of the said sale, to September 2, 1993, the period of the sale agreement as of September 2, 1993 shall not fall under the fixed period of the above sales agreement.

7. Even if the above transaction agreement on August 2, 1993 is deemed to be a sales contract for the land of this case, since the plaintiffs and the above Park Jong-man entered into a trade contract by amending the above transaction agreement on August 3, 1993, which was before September 2, 1993, the payment date of the first part payment (the first part payment) as stipulated in the above contract, and therefore the time of the transfer of the land of this case shall not be determined by the above transaction agreement, and shall be determined by the revised contract.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 51 (6) of the Income Tax Act provides that total income and necessary expenses shall be paid in cases where a resident sells assets in installments or in annual installments. Article 108 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083, Dec. 31, 1993) provides that the transfer date of assets not subject to installment transactions shall be three times or more from among the transfer date of assets that is not subject to installment transactions under individual terms and conditions, and the sale amount or revenue amount shall be paid in installments under the individual terms and conditions, and the period from the day following the delivery period to the date of the last installment payment shall be two years or more from the day after the last installment payment. In calculating the gains on transfer of assets, Article 27 of the Income Tax Act provides that the time of acquisition and transfer shall be determined by Presidential Decree, and Article 53 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14673, Dec. 31, 1994) provides that the first date of transfer under Article 53 (27).

C. Determination

(1) In light of the above evidence No. 6-1, No. 9-1, No. 10-1, No. 12-1, No. 7-14, and No. 8-2 (except for the part which is not trusted after the above evidence No. 9-3 and No. 4), the above facts were not stated in the above 3-1, No. 9-1, No. 9-2, and the above 3-1, No. 9-2, which were not recorded in the above 9-1, and the facts that the above 9-3-1, No. 9-2, which were recorded in the above 9-1, were not recorded in the above 9-3-1, and that the above 9-1, No. 9-2, which were recorded in the above 9-1, and that the above 9-3-1, which were not recorded in the above 9-1, and thus, the plaintiffs' new terms and conditions of payment for the plaintiff were stated in the 9-10-3-1, respectively.

① The Plaintiff Kim Jong-soo is the husband of the Plaintiff Kim Jong-soo who is the father of the Plaintiff Kim Jong-soo, the Plaintiff Lee Jong-sik is the father of the Plaintiff's profit-making friendly relationship with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff Park Jong-dong is the other spouse of the Plaintiff's profit-making friendly relationship with the Plaintiff Kim Jong-si, the Plaintiff Kim Jong-si is the starting student of the Plaintiff's profit-making friendly relationship with the Plaintiff's husband, and the Plaintiff Lee Jong-si is the husband of the Plaintiff's profit-making friendly relationship with the Plaintiff's work partner, and the Nonparty Park

② On August 2, 1993, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract regarding the instant land under the name of the Trade Agreement, which was signed on August 2, 1993, between the above Park Jong-dae who intends to build a new building on the instant land (However, the Plaintiff’s profit share was involved in the conclusion of the said contract on behalf of the Plaintiff Kim Jong-soo

The sales price for the instant land shall be KRW 10,220,00,000, which shall be determined as the down payment of KRW 2,332,00,000 on the date of the said contract, and KRW 4,00,000,00 on the date of the first intermediate payment of KRW 1,00,000,000, not later than one month from the said contract date, shall be paid in cash until August 2, 1994, within one year from the above contract date, and the balance of KRW 2,88,00,00 shall be paid in cash until August 2, 1994, within 32 months from the above contract date, and KRW 2,332,00,000,000 adjacent to the instant land by constructing new buildings on the ground, such as the first intermediate payment of KRW 4,00,000,000 on the same day, and shall be treated as KRW 12,370,000.

(b) Unlike the above purchase price, the transfer income tax and resident tax on the transfer of the land of this case shall be borne by the purchaser of the land of this case.

Along with the contract date, the above Park Jong-dae has the right to use the land of this case.

Within 20 days from the date of the payment of the first part of the part and the second part of the part, the Plaintiffs shall establish and register the right to collateral security and superficies equivalent to 1.3 times the amount paid under this Agreement in the name of the above Park Jong-man.

The above agreement shall be entered into with the land transaction permission and the real estate transaction contract based on this agreement after all conditions have been completed, and the real estate transaction contract shall succeed to the contents of this agreement.

③ The Plaintiffs received the said down payment of KRW 2,32,00,000 on the day of the said contract from the above Park Jong-man, and received KRW 4,00,000 from the first intermediate payment of KRW 4,00,000,000 on the following day on the 3th of the same month, and concluded a superficies contract for the duration of 30 years and the total sum of the down payment and the intermediate payment of KRW 6,32,00,000,000 for the purpose of owning a brick building on the instant land between the above Park Jong-dae-man and the above Ba-man on the 5th of the same month, respectively, and concluded a mortgage contract for the creation of superficies in the name of the above Park Jong-man and the establishment of a neighboring mortgage contract for the purpose of owning a brick building on the instant land.

④ After obtaining the instant land transaction permission as seen earlier as of September 8, 1993, the Plaintiffs received KRW 1,000,000 from the said second intermediate payment on August 2, 1994.

⑤ However, in lieu of the above balance, the plaintiffs paid 300,000,000 won to the plaintiffs on June 2, 1995 and paid 300,000 won as part of the above balance to the plaintiffs on May 2, 1995, after completing the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case under their own name, on the 20th of the same month, the plaintiff Kim Jong-si, the intention to be imposed on the 12th floor of the above new building, was to use it as a hospital. However, since the plaintiff's profit from the tax investigation of the building in the name of the plaintiff's profit-making owner, the plaintiff's profit-making owner paid the above balance to the above Park Jong-dae in cash because he could have the land seized by the National Tax Service, and he would promptly transfer the registration of ownership transfer.

⑤ On August 24, 1995, the above Park Jong-dae paid the transfer income tax amount of KRW 2,024,917,874 upon the transfer of the instant land in the name of the Plaintiffs, and KRW 303,293,790 on August 30 of the same year, and KRW 2,019,00,000 on October 16 of the same year.

"⑦ 원고들은 피고들의 이 사건 부과처분에 불복하여 이 사건 소의 전심절차로서 국세청장에게 심사청구를 각 제기하였는바, 그 때는계약일인 1993. 8. 2. 계약금 2,332,000,000원, 1994. 8. 2. 1차 중도금 1,000,000,000원, 1995. 6. 20. 2차 중도금 2,888,000,000원, 1995. 8. 2. 잔금 4,000,000,000원을 각 지급한다'는 내용이 기재되어 있는 위 소유권이전등기신청시 첨부하였던 이 사건 토지매매에 관한 검인계약서(갑제6호증의 2)를 제시하면서 원고들이 위 토지거래허가 허가후 위 매매협정서에 기하여 당초 매매협정서상의 계약내용을 변경하여 위와 같은 지급조건에 의한 새로운 계약을 체결하였으므로 토지거래허가일인 위 1993. 9. 8.부터 위 소유권이전등기일인 1995. 6. 2까지의 기간 혹은 첫회 부불금 지급일인 1994. 8. 2.부터 잔금지급일인 1985. 8. 2.까지의 기간이 각 2년 미만이어서 이 사건 토지의 양도가 연불조건부 매매에 해당되지 않는다고 취지로 주장하였으나 국세청장이 이를 받아들이지 않고 기각하자 다시 불복하여 국세심판소에 심판청구를 제기하였는바, 그 때는 원고들과 위 박순석이 1993. 12. 16.자로 위 매매협정서에 기하여 당초 매매대금에 금4,000,000,000원을 추가하는 이 사건 토지에 대한 매매계약을 체결하였다고 하면서계약금 2,332,000,000원 및 1차 중도금 4,000,000,000원은 기지급액으로 대치하고, 1994. 8. 2. 2차 중도금 1,000,000,000원, 1995. 6. 20. 3차 중도금 2,888,000,000원, 1995. 8. 2. 잔금 4,000,000,000원을 각 지급한다'는 내용이 기재되어 있는 매매계약서(을제8호증)를 제시하면서 그 첫회 부불금 지급일인 1993. 8. 3.부터 잔금지급일인 1995. 8. 2.까지의 기간이 2년 미만이므로 이 사건 토지의 양도는 연불조건부 매매가 아니라는 취지로 주장을 바꾸었으나 역시 이유없다고 기각되었다.",(2) 위 인정사실에 의하면, 원고들과 소외 박순석과의 사이에 체결된 위 1993. 8. 2.자 위 매매협정에서는 사후 위 매매협정에 기한 부동산매매계약이 체결될 것을 예정하는 조항을 두고 있으나 이는 토지거래허가가 무산되는 등의 사정변경이 생기는 것에 대비한 약정으로 보이고 가사 위 매매협정에 기하여 새로운 매매계약이 체결되더라도 위 매매협정의 내용을 승계하기로 약정되어 있고 위 믿기 어려운 증거 외에는 그 후 위 당사자들 사이에 위 매매협정의 내용을 변경하는 새로운 매매계약이 체결되었다는 점을 인정할 증거도 없는데다가 위 당사자들 사이에 위 매매협정에서 정한 내용대로 계약이 이행된 점으로 보아 위 매매협정은 그 명칭에 불구하고 실질적으로 이 사건 토지에 대한 매매계약이라고 보아야 할 것이므로 이 사건 토지의 양도가 연불조건부 매매에 의한 것인지 여부는 위 매매협정의 내용에 의하여 판단되어야 할 것인바, 한편 앞서 본 법령의 규정을 종합하면 연불조건부 양도에 해당되기 위하여는 목적물의 인도시기를 기산점으로 하여 최종 지급일까지의 기간이 2년 이상 되어야 할 것이고 위 기간의 기산점이 되는 목적물의 인도시기는 인도가 현실적으로 이루어진 날은 물론 매매계약의 내용 중 인도 또는 사용수익에 관한 특약으로 정한 인도가 가능한 날을 포함한다 할 것이므로(동지: 대법원 1995. 4. 28. 선고 94누6598 판결, 1997. 6. 13. 선고 95누1570 판결 등), 위 당사자들이 위 매매협정 후 바로 위 박순석이 이 사건 토지의 사용권을 가진다고 약정한 이상 위 매매협정일인 1993. 8. 2. 이 사건 토지의 인도가 가능하였다고 보여지고, 그 매매계약에 따라 1,2차 중도금이 모두 지급된 후 앞서 본 바와 같은 매도인의 사정 등에 의하여 잔금의 지급시기를 앞당기는 등 그 잔금지급방법만에 대한 재약정이 있은 경우 이와 같은 재약정은 잔금지급방법의 변경에 불과한 것이어서 그와 같은 잔금지급시기의 단축에 의하여 결과적으로 그 부동산의 인도일로부터 최종 잔금 지급일까지의 기간이 2년 미만으로 된다고 하여 당연히 당초의 연불조건부 약정이 통상의 매매로 전환된다고는 할 수 없으므로(대법원 1995. 9. 15. 선고 95누3527 판결 참조), 이 사건 매매계약은 3회 이상으로 분할하여 대금지급을 받고 이 사건 토지의 인도기간의 다음날부터 최종의 부불금의 지급일까지의 기간이 2년 이상인 소득세법 제51조 제6항 소정의 연불조건부 매매계약이므로 원고들이 이 사건 토지를 양도한 시기는 위 소득세법시행령 제53조 제1항 제3호 소정의 위 첫회 부불금의 지급일인 1993. 8.3.로 보아야 할 것이어서 피고들이 위 날짜의 기준시가에 의하여 위 양도가액을 산정하고 이에 기초하여 양도소득금액을 산정한 뒤 이 사건 처분을 한 것은 적법하므로 원고들의 위 주장은 이유없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case by the Defendants is lawful. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful, are dismissed as all of the grounds for appeal, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing parties. It is so decided as per Disposition.