Whether a provisional registration made for the purpose of securing a right to the security is a provisional registration under Article 35 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a person pays for another person's obligation and takes over a security by subrogation (negative)

In the event that the plaintiff paid the amount of money borrowed from the bank as collateral by subrogation by the non-party to take over the above apartment, it is anticipated that the approval of the bank for the application for subrogation submitted by the plaintiff to the bank and the repayment of principal and interest would take considerable time for the repayment of the principal and interest, and if the plaintiff paid the above apartment with the approval of the bank after obtaining the approval of the bank for the purpose of preserving the right to claim ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff, the above provisional registration shall be deemed a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer, and it shall not be deemed a provisional registration for the purpose of securing

Article 35 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu732 delivered on April 26, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above provisional registration of this case was 140,00,000 won borrowed from the non-party 1 Seoul Trust Bank as collateral for the apartment of this case, which is owned by the above non-party 1 and 2. The above provisional registration of this case was 00,000 won at the time of May 15, 1982, and the above amount exceeded 30,000 won, which is the maximum amount of loans to the above non-party 1. The court below held that the above provisional registration of this case was 10,000 won for the above non-party 2's disposal of the above apartment of this case was 00,000 won, and that the above provisional registration of this case was 10,000 won for the above non-party 2's disposal of the above real estate by the non-party 1 and the above provisional registration of this case was 90,000 won for the purpose of securing the principal and interest of the above loan.

In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and the process of its determination are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to provisional registration for security purposes under Article 35 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or in the misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and the relationship between the plaintiff, Seoul Trust Bank, and non-party 1, etc. is not recognized as having a special relationship for the repayment of tax liability, and therefore,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)