The case holding that the seller of real estate is a transaction with an individual because the seller of real estate knew that the actual purchaser is a corporation and concluded a sales contract with the representative director.

The Plaintiff’s agent imposed a condition that the Plaintiff’s agent would not sell to the corporation as capital gains tax when requesting the intermediation of real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the real estate exporter. If the broker solicits the corporation to purchase and actually paid the purchase price with the corporate funds, but the Plaintiff’s agent, while hiding the fact that the principal purchaser is a juristic person, entered into a sales contract with the representative director of the juristic person, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the said real estate shall be deemed as a transaction with the individual.

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, Article 170(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2765 delivered on October 30, 1990

Attorney Lee Jong-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu344 delivered on February 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party Lee Jae-hun, who represented by the plaintiff and his Lee Jae-hun, requested the real estate reporter to arrange the land and buildings at the time of original sale, and attached a condition that it does not sell them to the corporation as transfer income tax, the non-party Shin Jae-chul, who recommended the association to purchase the site for construction of a private house at around that time, knowing the fact that the last Young-chul, the president of the Young-chul Credit Cooperatives, was in physical color, and actually paid the purchase price with the funds of the association, but the above Lee Jae-hun, who actually paid the purchase price to the association, was the original purchaser on December 16, 1983, which concealed the fact that the principal purchaser was the association, and entered into a sales contract at the original sale market with his address. Thus, the court below was just in light of the records of evidence preparation conducted in recognizing the above fact, and there was no error of law by incomplete deliberation

If facts were determined by the court below, the plaintiff's transfer of the real estate in this case should be deemed to have been an individual transaction. Thus, the court below's judgment is justified.

2. The court below's argument that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the proviso of Article 23 (4) of the Income Tax Act and Article 45 (1) 1 of the same Act and Article 170 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is not asserted in the court below, or it cannot be employed as an attacking the judgment of the court below on the premise of facts different from the contents of the judgment of the court below. The court below's decision of 89Nu1971 delivered on December 26, 1989 is related to the interpretation of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 3576 of December 21, 1982, and it is not appropriate in this case. All arguments are groundless.

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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)