[1] The case rejecting the assignee's assertion that the acquisition of real estate was nominal in the way of debt collection, in case where the transferee of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) applied for a voluntary auction of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) and applied for the successful bid and offset the acquisition price

[2] The case holding that where a person who acquired the real estate with no consideration and without consideration acquires the real estate through an auction procedure after acquiring the real estate, the acquisition of the real estate constitutes a transaction that increases net assets equivalent to the value of the real estate, which constitutes a transaction where profit is generated

[1] The case rejecting the assignee's assertion that the acquisition of real estate was nominal in the way of debt collection, in case where the transferee of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) applied for a voluntary auction of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) and won the successful bid and offset the acquisition of the right

[2] The case holding that where a person who acquired the real estate through an auction procedure without any consideration acquires the real estate above through the acquisition of the real estate, it is difficult to view that the transferee paid the price for the acquisition of the real estate above without compensation because it is difficult to view that the transferee paid the price for the acquisition of the above real estate only with the bonds that the transferee acquired without compensation, and accordingly, the acquisition of the above real estate constitutes a transaction that increases the net assets equivalent to the value thereof.

[1] Articles 2 (see current Article 3) and 3 (see current Article 4) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4804, Dec. 22, 1994); / [2] Articles 2 (see current Article 3), 3 (see current Article 4), and 9 (see current Article 14) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4804, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 12 (see current Article 11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1468, Dec. 31, 1994)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7458 delivered on May 16, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1786)

Han-gu Co., Ltd.

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu12245 delivered on July 18, 2000

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

1. As to the violation of the rules of evidence regarding title trust

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 10, 1993, Nonparty 1, the representative director of the plaintiff, had completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 500 million won against the non-party 2 as the claim security claim amount. On June 25, 1994, the plaintiff acquired the above collateral security right claim from the non-party 2 and completed the additional registration before the same month. On July 4, 1994, the plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on the forest of this case with the government branch of the Seoul District Court for the registration of transfer of the right to purchase the forest of this case and submitted the bid price in the future on August 7, 199, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that it was difficult for the non-party 1 to purchase the right to purchase the forest of this case and submitted the bid price to the non-party 2 in the same manner as the plaintiff 1 acquired the ownership of the forest of this case for the reason that it did not belong to the property of this case.

In light of the records, the above recognition and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence, or violation of precedents.

2. As to the violation of the substance over form principle

According to the records, the plaintiff acquired the forest land above through the auction procedure after acquiring the right to collateral security from the non-party 2 without any consideration. If there are such circumstances, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff actually paid the price in connection with the acquisition of the forest land of this case with the claim that was acquired without compensation in the auction procedure and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff paid the price to the non-party 2, etc. with the acquisition of the forest of this case. Thus, the plaintiff should be deemed to have acquired the forest of this case without compensation, and accordingly, the acquisition of the forest of this case constitutes the case where profits accrue from the transaction that increases net assets equivalent to the value.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion related to the price relation with the acquisition of forest land of this case and holding that the disposition of this case is legitimate, which included the equivalent value of the forest land in the gross income, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the substance over form principle

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)