A. Whether the time of restoring the registration title of real estate offered as security for transfer can be deemed the time of acquisition of assets for calculating gains on transfer (negative);

(b) Whether the land used by the self-support workers as the workplace constitutes the land for the collection and disposal of garbage under Article 21 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, which is subject to the special long-term holding deduction (negative);

A. The acquisition of a building site and completion of the registration of ownership transfer to a creditor as a security for a loan loan obligation cannot be considered as a commercial transfer subject to the transfer income tax, and even if the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled and the registration title was restored, the time of acquisition of the building site for calculating the transfer margin is the time of the original acquisition.

B. The self-support workers are only those who collect and sell recyclable waste, etc. among garbage and do not engage in the business of collecting or disposing of garbage, and therefore the land used by the self-support workers as the workplace cannot be deemed as land for garbage collection and disposal business under Article 21 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act.

A. Articles 4(3) and 27 of the Income Tax Act, Article 45(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 23(2)2 of the Income Tax Act, Article 46-3 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190), Article 18-3(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of March 6, 191), Article 8(1)14(b) of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act, Article 21(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu24603 delivered on June 11, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined on June 29, 1966 that the plaintiff acquired the site of this case and completed the registration of transfer to the non-party as security of 900,000 won loan obligation to the non-party on December 29, 1973, and then repaid the registration title by cancelling the registration of transfer to the non-party's future on February 6, 1982, and then transferred it to Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 20, 1990. The plaintiff's completion of the registration of transfer to the above non-party on the site of this case is nothing more than a transfer to the above loan obligation, and it cannot be deemed that the transfer to the non-party is subject to capital gains tax, and even if the registration was restored to the title of transfer to the above non-party on February 6, 1982 by cancelling the registration of transfer to the above non-party's future on February 29, 1973, the judgment below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition time of transfer interest.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the land used by the self-support workers as the land subject to the long-term holding special deduction under Article 23 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act, Article 46-3 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 18-3 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is legitimate and confirmed that the land in this case was leased to the self-support workers around 1978 and 36 members of the self-support workers were used as the workplace such as collecting and selling recyclable waste, etc., and since the workers of the self-support workers were only those who collect recyclable waste from waste and engage in collecting and disposing of garbage, the land in this case used by the self-support workers as the workplace cannot be deemed as the land for collecting waste and disposing of waste under Article 21 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

In light of the records and relevant laws, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as asserted in the lawsuit.

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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)