Whether the income from the transfer of the rights and obligations (the purchaser's status) under a sales contract is subject to the transfer income tax under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of December 5, 1978).

In the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, capital gains tax, which is subject to capital gains tax, refers to income arising from the transfer of land, buildings, etc. at the time of enforcement of the same Act, and where a purchaser of land pays a down payment and a part of the price, such fact alone cannot be deemed to have acquired the actual ownership of the land. Therefore, if the land was again transferred under the same condition, it cannot be deemed that the actual ownership is transferred, and it is nothing more than that of transferring the buyer’s right to acquire the

Articles 4(1)3, 4(3), and 23 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978)

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu48 Delivered on May 10, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1175 delivered on June 27, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The purport of the transfer or acquisition of assets under Article 27 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978) is not to take legal effect on the date of partial transfer or acquisition other than the down payment, but in the case of transfer or acquisition of the assets, it is merely the legal fiction of the time of transfer or acquisition under tax law as the date of partial receipt other than the down payment. Meanwhile, at the time when the above Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act enter into force, a member has repeatedly expressed that the transfer income subject to capital gains tax refers to the income accruing from the transfer of land or buildings, and if a land purchaser pays part of the down payment and the down payment, such fact alone cannot be deemed to have acquired the actual ownership of the land. Therefore, if the land was again transferred in this situation, it is nothing more than the transfer of the purchaser's right or right to acquire real property.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff purchased from the Korea Assets Management Corporation of Sep. 30, 1975 the amount of KRW 2,310,00 per contract in 303 square meters for the purchase of KRW 23,10,000 for the construction of the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted) and 62 square meters for the above ground buildings, and paid KRW 2,310,00 for the remainder of the purchase price in 5,220,000 for September 29, 1976, and agreed to pay KRW 5,190,00 for the purchase price in 12,720,000 for each of the above agreements. The plaintiff paid KRW 12,720,000 for the purchase price to the non-party company of this case with the consent of the seller's status as the purchaser of the above real estate (the non-party company of this case's acquisition of the above obligation of the non-party company of this case).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the rights and duties under the sales contract for the instant real estate to the above non-party company is not a transfer of ownership, but merely a transfer of the purchaser’s status, and thus cannot be subject to the transfer income tax, and even if the Plaintiff paid part of the purchase price other than the down payment to the non-party company by September 29, 1976, the above Income Tax Act does not purport that the legal effect of transfer takes place on the date of partial receipt of the purchase price, but it is nothing more than the legal effect of transfer on the date of partial transfer under the tax law, and even in this regard, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate and transferred it to the above non-party company, and thus, it cannot be subject to the transfer income tax. Therefore, the

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 Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)