B. Whether Article 60 of the Income Tax Act and Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act following delegation thereof are unconstitutional (negative)

B. Articles 23, 31, and 45 of the Income Tax Act stipulate all important matters such as taxation requirements and tax rates of transfer income tax, and Article 60 of the Income Tax Act delegates only the method of determining the standard market price which forms the basis of calculating the tax base to the Presidential Decree (Article 115(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which stipulates the method of determining the standard market price at the time of acquisition by dividing a specific area and other cases in order to restrain an speculative transaction of assets by delegation), cannot be said to be an unconstitutional provision in violation of the Constitution, the principle of no taxation without law, the

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 115(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989; hereinafter the same) provides that the standard market price shall be the value appraised by the rate method in cases where a taxable object is located in a specific area prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the value shall be the value calculated by the standard market price under the Local Tax Act in cases where a taxable object is located in an area other than that prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (a) and (3) provides that the method of appraisal by the rate method shall be the standard market price at the time of acquisition of assets in a specific area without the rate because it does not fall under the specific area at the time of acquisition, and Article 115(1)1(a) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be the value converted by the method prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in accordance with Article 56-5(7)(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it cannot be accepted that if a land or building falls under a specific area at the time of its transfer, even if it falls under a specific area at the time of its acquisition, the calculation of gains on transfer shall be calculated based on the standard market price under the Local Tax Act. The precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit are related to the interpretation of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act before amended by May 8, 1987, and it is not appropriate in this case.

The provisions of Article 60 of the Income Tax Act (the provisions of Article 115(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides for the method of determining the standard market price at the time of acquisition by dividing a specific area and other cases to curb speculative transactions of assets by delegation), which stipulate all important matters such as taxation requirements and tax rates of capital gains tax and delegates only the method of determining the standard market price which forms the basis of calculation of tax base to the Presidential Decree, cannot be said to be the unconstitutional provisions in violation of the Constitution, the principle of no taxation without law, the right to equality, and the guarantee of property rights under the Constitution. The arguments are groundless

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)