[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1991.3.15.(892),894]
A. Whether a building other than the transferred house is a case where the part of the building used for purposes other than the house is larger than the transferred house (negative)
B. Whether Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) violates the principle of no taxation without law (negative)
A. In a case where a house site is transferred, if a household of the transferor owns another house, it shall not be deemed to fall under the transfer of one house by one household, for which no transfer income tax is imposed pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198) which was enforced at the time of the transfer, unless it falls under Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, and the ownership of a house other than the transferred house shall not be deemed to fall under the case where a house other than the transferred house is used for a purpose other than the house, on the ground that the building with the house other than the transferred
B. Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) does not belong to a specific area at the time of acquisition of the standard market price delegated by the Income Tax Act, but at the time of transfer, it delegated the method of determination to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy only if it comes to belong to a specific area, and thus, it does not
A. Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4019, Dec. 26, 1988); Article 60 of the Income Tax Act; Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989)
B. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11940 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 281) 90Nu3386 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong190, 2198)
E. Mazilday
Head of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu7240 delivered on June 19, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In light of the records, the court below's decision is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion without reliance on the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the date of transferring the land at issue in this case was about six years prior to July 29, 1987, which is the date on which the cause on which the plaintiff transferred the land in this case on the register, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in theory, and there is no violation of law such as violation of the rules of evidence in theory. In addition, unless there is a case falling under Article 6 (1), etc. of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, unless it falls under Article 6 (1), etc. of the Income Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of the transfer of this case (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 1988), and it does not fall under a transfer of one house for one household where a house other than the transferred house was used for a purpose other than the whole house, and therefore it cannot be viewed as a case where the house was not owned except for the entire house.
In addition, Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) provides that although it does not belong to a specific area at the time of the acquisition of the standard market price delegated by the Income Tax Act, it shall be delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance only if it comes to belong to the specific area at the time of the transfer, and thus effective and shall not be comprehensively delegated matters delegated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11940 of Dec. 12, 1989). Thus,
The argument is groundless because it is nothing more than criticizes the original judgment or criticizes the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the original court.
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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won