B. Whether it constitutes a retroactive legislation to allow the determination of the acquisition value of assets acquired prior to its enforcement by applying the ratio at the time of transfer (negative)

(c) The method of calculating transfer margin of land which was not included in a specific area at the time of its acquisition under the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1,

B. If the legislation on the transfer income tax, which is the tax on the income accruing from the transfer of assets, applies only to the asset transfer transaction after its enforcement, the acquisition value was determined by applying the ratio at the time of its acquisition which was known at the time of its acquisition, and it cannot be deemed a retroactive legislation.

C. At the time of transfer of land which was not a specific area at the time of acquisition, if it comes to belong to a specific area, the transfer value shall be determined by the rate under Article 115 (3) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), and the acquisition value shall be determined by the conversion method under Article 56-5 (7) and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 198

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989; hereinafter the same) provides for the general matters concerning the determination of the standard market price at the time of transfer pursuant to delegation of Article 60 (1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 60 (3) of the same Act provides for a specific area at the time of transfer. It delegates only the method of determining the standard market price at the time of acquisition of assets without the rate to finance Ministerial Ordinance, and Article 56-5 (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act provides that Article 56-5 (5) of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the method of determining the acquisition price of assets which are not a specific area at the time of its acquisition and are not an administrative agency at the time of its acquisition. This does not mean that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service grants the authority to determine the acquisition price of assets which goes beyond the method of determination of the tax base at the time of transfer to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

Furthermore, insofar as the legislation on the transfer income tax, which is the tax on the income accruing from the transfer of assets, applies only to the transaction of assets after its enforcement, it cannot be deemed a retroactive legislation by making a decision by applying the ratio at the time of transfer that was not known at the time of its acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu11940, Dec. 12, 1989; 90Nu2192, Jun. 12, 1990; 90Nu3515, Jul. 24, 1990).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the transfer value in this case where the land which was not belonging to a specific area comes to belong to the specific area at the time of its acquisition shall be determined by the rate under Article 115 (3) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree, and the acquisition value shall be determined by the conversion method under Article 56-5 (7) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under Article 56-5 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 88-2 of the National Tax

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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)