A. The fact that a provisional registration was made only to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the purchased real estate even after the full payment of the purchase price was made

(b) The validity of taxation disposition made by misunderstanding the relationship as to whether the real estate was purchased or provided as the mortgaged property.

A. A provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer is permissible if it is made for the purpose of securing the right to claim ownership transfer registration. On the contrary, it is extremely common that the buyer made a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration without making a registration of ownership transfer concerning the purchased real estate even if he pays the purchase price in full. Therefore, in order to have already purchased the real estate and paid the full amount before the provisional registration, it shall be examined and determined as to what the reason for a provisional registration has already been made without

B. Whether real estate was purchased or provided as security for transfer is related to the legal relations or factual relations of the subject of taxation, and even if the tax authority issued a tax disposition, it is merely a ground for revocation even if it misleads the relation and made a tax disposition.

A. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Defendant-Appellant] The Head of Silcheon-si District Development Corporation

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu492 delivered on May 12, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above real estate was purchased by the plaintiff on December 25, 1979 as the second taxpayer of the corporate tax, etc. of this case on December 25, 1979, after entering into a sales contract to purchase the real estate from the non-party 1, who is the second taxpayer of the corporate tax, etc. of this case, in gold 70,000,000, and paid in full the above purchase price on that day, and the plaintiff entered into a provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of this real estate on January 19, 1980, and completed a provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of this real estate on June 11, 1981. The above real estate was purchased by the plaintiff on December 25, 1979, under the premise that the above real estate was a property transferred to the plaintiff for security of claims, and thus, the tax disposition of this case on the premise that the above real estate was a property transferred to the plaintiff.

However, provisional registration for preserving the right to claim for transfer of ownership is permissible if it is made for the purpose of securing the right to claim ownership. On the other hand, it is extremely exceptional that the buyer made provisional registration for preserving the right to claim transfer of ownership without paying the purchase price in full. According to the records, the Plaintiff Company is a corporation established on December 23, 1978 with Nonparty 2 as its representative director, and the Plaintiff Company was established on October 20, 1979, which was 154,00,000 won prior to the sale date of the Plaintiff’s principal, and the establishment registration of superficies was completed for 15 years, and the period of use is still in existence without cancelling the registration of establishment of superficies and superficies until the closure date of the fact-finding proceedings. Thus, the lower court should have determined the ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s real estate under the name of the Plaintiff’s ownership at least 9,000 for the purpose of securing the right to claim transfer of ownership for the purpose of security, and the lower court should have determined the ownership transfer registration in its entirety.

This paper is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)