(a) Date commencing the extinctive prescription of right to impose and collect transfer income tax;

(b) Whether the fact that the existence of income does not know affects the progress of extinctive prescription of national tax collection right.

A. It shall be deemed that the imposition and collection of capital gains tax on capital gains was possible from the day after the day of expiration of the final return on the tax base of capital gains. Thus, the extinctive prescription of capital gains tax is proceeding.

B. Since there is no preliminary or final return on transfer marginal profits from the transfer of assets under the Income Tax Act from the taxpayer, even if the tax authority knew of such transfer until the transfer registration of ownership is terminated, such reason does not constitute a legal disability that makes it impossible to exercise the right, and thus, the extinctive prescription period of the right to impose and collect transfer income tax shall not affect the progress

Article 100 (1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 27 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu572 delivered on December 26, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu212 delivered on July 23, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu371 delivered on December 10, 1985

Plaintiff

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu235 delivered on August 18, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the court below is justified in finding that the plaintiff sold the site of this case to the non-party on May 30, 1979 in gold 6,40,000 and received the full payment until August 31 of the same year, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence.

In addition, according to Article 27 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576, Dec. 21, 1982) which was enforced at the time of sale of the pertinent land, the transfer or acquisition time of assets shall be the date of concluding the relevant contract and receiving part of the price other than the down payment, and Article 100 (1) of the same Act provides that a resident who has the transfer income in the pertinent year shall report the transfer income tax to the Government from May 1 to May 31 of the year following the corresponding year, as determined by the court below, if the Plaintiff received the entire transfer price of the instant land by August 31, 1979, the transfer time of the instant land shall be deemed to be the date of transfer at the latest, and the expiration date of the final return on the transfer of the said land shall be May 31, 1980.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the tax authority, should be deemed to have been able to impose and collect the transfer income tax on the above transfer income from June 1, 1980, the next day. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the right to impose and collect the transfer income tax on the above transfer income from this point shall run. As such, as in the theory of lawsuit, even though the defendant did not know of the above transfer from the plaintiff until the transfer registration of ownership is completed due to the lack of the expected return on the transfer income under the Income Tax Act or the final return on the return on the transfer income from the plaintiff, such reason does not constitute a legal obstacle that makes it impossible to exercise the right, and thus

In the above purport, the court below is just in holding that since the right to impose and collect the transfer income tax of this case had been five years since June 1, 1980 and the prescription has already been expired as of June 1, 1985, the disposition of this case is eventually illegal after the right to impose and collect the transfer income tax of this case was extinguished, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of the taxation claim

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 Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)