1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff sells real estate on behalf of the non-party 1 corporation for the year 190, it is reasonable to interpret the provision of Article 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the above provision of Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) by leasing it to other person for the purpose of interpreting the provision of Article 18(7) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (the above provision of Article 18(8) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act shall be amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1835 of Oct. 22, 1990; hereinafter the above provision shall be amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1 of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 5 of the year 190 and the above provision of Article 18(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (the above provision shall be amended by Ordinance No. 18181 of the same year).

2. Corporate tax is imposed upon the completion of taxation requirements at the end of the business year, which is a taxable period, and the tax liability is established at that time. When the tax law is revised during the business year, it shall be imposed under the law at the end of the business year and the scope of the tax liability shall be determined by the law at the end of the business year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu26, Jun. 28, 1983). Thus, Article 2 of the above Addenda, which provides that the provisions of Article 18(1), (3), and (8) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, newly amended, which apply to this case, apply from the first business year that ends after the enforcement of the above Act, shall be governed by the above natural purport, and it shall not be against the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition. Meanwhile, in the case of the publicly announced individual land price under Article 18(8) of the above Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, the officially announced individual land price as of the end of the business year should be applied during the entire business year.

Therefore, the meaning of Article 8 of the Addenda related to the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act of April 4, 1990 that "the value of land in the application of the provisions of Article 18 (1) and (8) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act shall be the standard market price under the provisions of Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act until the land price of individual land is calculated," is that where the officially assessed individual land price is not calculated and publicly announced by the end of the business year, the standard market price under the Income Tax Act before the amendment shall apply to the whole business year, and where one business year has been calculated and publicly announced after the computation of the officially assessed individual land price, it shall not be the meaning of applying the standard market price under the Income Tax Act before the amendment, and the officially assessed individual

Ultimately, the court below's decision that the standard market price before and after the amendment of the officially assessed individual land price shall be applied to the business year after the end of August 30, 1990 of the plaintiff's 190 project year, which came after the announcement of the officially assessed individual land price, and the officially assessed individual land price after the amendment shall be deemed to have influenced the result of the judgment after the interpretation of Article 8 of the above Addenda. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)