아래의 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나 갑 제1 내지 3, 9, 10호증, 을 제6호증, 을 제7호증의 1, 2, 을 제8호증의 1 내지 7, 을 제9호증, 을 제10호증의 1, 2, 을 제11호증의 1 내지 6, 을 제12호증, 을 제13호증의 1, 2, 을 제14호증의 1 내지 6, 을 제15호증의 1, 2, 을 제16호증의 각 기재와 증인 김ㅇㅇ의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 인정할 수 있고 반증이 없다.

1.1.The plaintiff's industrial base development project.

"원고('ㅇㅇ개발공사'에서 1988. 7. 1. 현재의 명칭으로 변경되었다)는 구 산업기지개발촉진법(1973. 12. 24. 법률 제2657호로 제정되어 1990. 1. 13. 법률 제4216호산업입지및개발에관한법률'로 폐지된 법률) 제5조에 의하여 1988. 12. 31. 이전에 산업기지개발구역으로 지정된 ㅇㅇ지구, ㅇㅇ지구, ㅇㅇ지구 등 8개 지구(이하이 사건 사업지구'라 한다)에 관하여 위 법 제7조의 규정에 따라 산업기지개발사업의 시행자로 지정되어 이 사건 사업지구 안에서 산업기지개발사업을 시행해 왔다.",1.1. 1990년도 귀속분 법인세 특별부가세 부과처분의 경위

(1) On March 30, 191, when the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax for the transfer of the land created within the business district of this case on March 1991, 120,82,079,873 won from the transfer of the land created within the business district of this case, 120, 879, 29, 199-3 (1) 14 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020, Dec. 26, 198; hereinafter referred to as the “former Corporate Tax Act”) and 30, 96, 196, 196, 196, 30, 96, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 196, 30, 196, 196, 196, 40, 196, 196, 196.

(1) On March 30, 1992, the Plaintiff transferred the land, etc. developed in the instant business district to the Defendant on March 30, 1992, and reported the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax to the Defendant on March 30, 1992, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 54,689,631 as special surtax for the transfer of the land created in the instant business district, among the transfer margin, on the basis that it is exempt from special surtax pursuant to Article 59-3(1)14 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 16 of the Addenda of the amended Corporate Tax Act.

"(2) The defendant shall consider only the amount of tax equivalent to 50% of special surtax pursuant to Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the former Adjustment Act and Article 5 (1) of the Addenda to the business year 1991 with respect to gains from the transfer of land created in the business district of this case, and calculate the amount of tax for KRW 183,552,88,79 of the Plaintiff's gains from the transfer of the business year of 1991, and calculated KRW 41,679,17,831 of the attached Table 191, as stated in the correction column for the amount of special surtax belonging to the year 1991, and calculated the amount of tax 41,492,620,995 won (the calculated amount of tax on gains from the transfer of land created in the business district of this case) after deducting KRW 186,56,836 won from the calculated amount of tax on the gains from the transfer of land outside the business district of this case, the amount of special surtax shall be reduced to KRW 1397.1,1980.

(1) On March 25, 1993, the Plaintiff transferred the land, etc. developed in the instant business district to the Defendant on March 25, 1993, and reported the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax to the Defendant on March 25, 1993, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 14,089,444 as special surtax for the transfer gains calculated by taking the remainder of the deduction of special surtax under Article 59-3(1)14 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 16 of the Addenda of the amended Corporate Tax Act as non-taxable income under Article 59-3(1)14 of the former Corporate Tax Act.

"(2) The Defendant: (a) calculated the amount of tax equivalent to 50% of the special surtax pursuant to Article 59 subparag. 5 of the former Adjustment Act and Article 5(1) of the Addenda to the instant project district; and (b) calculated the Plaintiff’s tax amount of KRW 68,768,356,967 from the transfer margin of the business year 192; and (c) calculated the amount of tax for KRW 12,713,616,616,616 as stated in [Attachment 192; and (d) calculated the amount of tax for KRW 14,089,444 from the transfer of land, etc. other than the instant project district; (b) calculated the amount of tax for KRW 12,69,527,172 (the calculated amount of tax on the transfer margin accruing from the transfer of land created within the instant project district); and (c) calculated the amount of tax for less than KRW 930,194,197,297.

(1) On March 30, 1994, the Plaintiff transferred the land, etc. developed in the instant business district in 1993 to the Defendant on March 30, 1994, and reported and paid KRW 7,008,956,932 calculated on the said transfer margin by deeming that the tax amount equivalent to 50% of the special surtax pursuant to Article 59 subparag. 5 of the former Adjustment Act and Article 5(1) of the Addenda is reduced and exempted for gains from the transfer of the land developed in the instant business district among gains from transfer.

(2) On September 30, 1994, the Plaintiff filed a revised tax base return for the business year of 1993 with respect to KRW 55,981,187,04, which occurred from the transfer of land created in the instant business district, and filed an application for refund of KRW 6,85,70,65,05 of the capital gains accrued from the transfer of land created in the instant business district to the Defendant on September 30, 1994, under Article 59-3(1)14 of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 59-3(1)14 of the former Corporate Tax Act, and Article 16 of the Addenda of the amended Corporate Tax Act, on the ground that the amount equivalent to 50% of the special surtax shall be deemed to have been reduced by mistake, and the special surtax was paid by deeming that the special surtax was reduced by 50% under Article 59(5) of the former Adjustment Act and Article 5(1) of the Addenda of the former Corporate Tax Act.

"(3) Accordingly, on November 9, 1994, the defendant issued a disposition to refuse the plaintiff's application for refund on the ground that only the amount of tax equivalent to 50% of special surtax is reduced and exempted pursuant to Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the former Adjustment Act and Article 5 (1) of the Addenda of the Addenda with respect to gains from the transfer of land created in the instant project district to the plaintiff on November 9, 1994 (hereinafter "disposition to refuse the correction of this case").

1.1.Provisions of relevant laws and regulations;

(1) Contents of amendment of the laws and regulations related to the reduction and exemption of special taxation on the transfer of land created by the industrial base development project

(A) 100% non-taxation provisions under the Corporate Tax Act

Article 59-3 (1) 14 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that no special surtax shall be imposed on any income accruing from the transfer of land, etc. created by a project implementer in a region designated under the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as "the first non-taxation clause"). (b) 50% reduction and exemption provisions and transitional provisions by the amendment of the Corporate Tax Act.

Article 59-3 (2) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020, Jan. 1, 1989), which was amended on December 26, 1988, deleted the initial non-taxation clause and instead Article 59-3 (2) 4, was newly established. In the above case, the amended Corporate Tax Act stipulates that 50% of the amount of special taxation shall be exempted (hereinafter referred to as "the amended Corporate Tax Act") and Article 12 (1) and Article 12-3 (2) 4 of the Addenda of the former Corporate Tax Act shall apply to the first transfer after this Act enters into force, and Article 16 of the Addenda of the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act provides that the provisions under Article 59-3 (1) 14 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 4020, Jan. 1, 1989) shall apply to the income accruing from the transfer of land, etc. created by a project implementer of a district designated under the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act.

Article 5(1) of the former Act on 30 December 1989 (amended by Act No. 4165, Jan. 1, 1990) provides that the provisions of the former Corporate Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165, Jan. 1, 1990) were deleted and instead, Article 59(5) of the former Act was newly established as to the reduction and exemption of the special surtax (hereinafter referred to as "the reduction and exemption provisions"), and that there was no change in the content that the tax amount equivalent to 50% of the special surtax shall be reduced and exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of land, etc. created by the project implementer of a district or district designated under the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act. However, Article 5(3) of the Addenda of the former Act provides that the reduction and exemption provisions shall apply from the first transfer after January 1, 199, Article 5(3) of the former Act provides that the former Corporate Tax Act (including the refund or collection pursuant to the provisions of Article 9(2) of the Addenda of the Corporate Tax Act.

(2) Details of the legislation pertaining to the revised tax base return

Article 45(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4810 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that a person who has filed a return of tax base within the statutory due date of return may file a revised return of tax base within the time limit specified in any of the following subparagraphs, if any omission or error exists in the descriptions thereof. In the case of corporate tax and value-added tax under subparagraph 1, it shall be within six months (in the case of a preliminary return, three months after the due date of return) after the due date of return expires. In the case of corporate tax and value-added tax, it shall be within six months (in the case of a preliminary return, three months after the due date of the preliminary return). Article 45(2) provides that where any of the descriptions of the revised return of tax base that are prescribed by Presidential Decree

1.1. The Parties' Claims

(1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The provisions of Article 1 and Article 5(1) of the former Act on the Promotion of Industrial Base Development (amended by Act No. 50% of the special surtax in case of transfer after January 1, 1990; Article 19(2) of the Addenda of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 50% of the special surtax shall be reduced or exempted if the land created by the project implementer of a district or district designated under the provisions of the former Act on the Promotion of Industrial Base Development (amended by Act No. 31, Dec. 31, 1988) is transferred after January 1, 1990, if the land created by the project implementer of a district designated by the district designated under the provisions of the former Act on the Promotion of Industrial Base Development (amended by Act No. 4238, Jan. 1, 1990) is inconsistent with the provisions of the former Corporate Tax Act on the non-taxation of special surtax and the provisions of the reduction and exemption under the former Act on the Promotion of Factory Base Development (amended by Act).

In addition, Article 19 (2) of the Addenda to the Corporate Tax Act is based on the premise that the exemption clause is a provision of the Corporate Tax Act.

Therefore, if a land created by a project implementer of an area designated as a district under the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act before December 31, 1988 is transferred after January 1, 1990, only the tax amount equivalent to 50% of the special surtax pursuant to Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the former Act and Article 5 (1) of the Addenda shall be reduced and exempted for the gains from transfer. Thus, each disposition of this case and each refusal disposition of correction based on the grounds for the above disposition and relevant statutes are legitimate.

(2) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) The amendment of the former Act on the Reduction and Exemption of Special Surtax applied by the former Act on the Reduction and Exemption of Special Surtax instead of the former Corporate Tax Act, but there is no provision to abolish or amend the provisions on the non-taxation transitional provisions under the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the non-taxation transitional provisions still remain effective despite the amendment of the former Act on the Reduction and Exemption of Special Surtax.

On the other hand, Article 5 (3) of the Addenda of the former Chonhae Act provides that the special surtax shall be imposed or imposed pursuant to the previous provisions of the Corporate Tax Act in the case of the former Corporate Tax Act as of the time this Act enters into force. Since the above provisions are a transitional provision that applies to the tax obligation established after the amendment of the previous Acts favorable to the taxpayer in order to protect the taxpayer's rights of vested interests or trust when the tax laws are amended disadvantageous to the taxpayer, with respect to the gains from the transfer of the land created by the project implementer of the area designated by the district under the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act before December 31, 198, regardless of the time of transfer, the special surtax shall be exempted pursuant to the provisions of the non-taxation transitional provisions and the provisions of the initial

Therefore, each disposition of this case shall be revoked as it is illegal since the special surtax is imposed on the income subject to non-taxation. The defendant's refusal disposition of correction of this case shall also be revoked as it is unlawful for the plaintiff's refusal of refund of the special surtax on non-taxable income among the tax base and tax amount initially reported when filing a revised return of tax base for the business year 193

(B) In domestic affairs, on or before December 31, 198, the project implementer of the area designated as a district under the provisions of the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act applied the provisions of the former Reduction and Exemption Act to transfer margin accruing from the transfer of land after January 1, 1990, which is subject to special surtax, and even if the tax amount equivalent to 50% of special surtax is reduced or exempted, the plaintiff filed a non-taxation on the above transfer margin due to differences in the opinion of interpretation of tax law, not intentionally or by negligence, but due to the difference in the opinion of interpretation of tax law. The defendant did not raise any objection even though the plaintiff filed a non-taxable tax on the transfer income as above of the corresponding year since 1993, since the special surtax was imposed and imposed on the transfer income as above, the part of each disposition of this case concerning additional tax shall be revoked.

1.1. Determination

(1) Whether a non-taxable transitional provision was deleted by the former Act

However, in principle, tax laws should be strictly interpreted regardless of whether they are taxable requirements or tax exemption requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu825, Aug. 22, 1995). In light of such principles, Article 19(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act that deletes each provision of Article 59-3(2) through (4) of the former Corporate Tax Act should be deleted pursuant to Article 19(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act. However, even though Article 19(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act of the former Corporate Tax Act of the former Corporate Tax Act explicitly provides for the matters subject to tax exemption separately from the provision of the Corporate Tax Act of the latter Corporate Tax Act, it cannot be deemed that it was deleted due to the deletion of the provision of the

(2) Whether there is any inconsistency and promotion between the non-taxation progress provisions and the reduction reduction and exemption provisions

Article 5 (1) of the Addenda to the former Lighting Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 50% of the special surtax) provides that the former Lighting Act shall apply from the first transfer after January 1, 1990, in which the former Lighting Act enters into force. Thus, with respect to gains from transfer of land created by a project implementer in an area designated by the district on or after January 1, 1990, the former Lighting Act may be deemed to apply both the provisions of the non-taxation and the provisions of the reduction and exemption under the former Lighting Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13580, Dec. 31, 1988; 2007; 208. 3.

"In this regard, if the Addenda of the tax law, in the case of the amendment of the tax law, provides for a transitional provision that "any tax imposed (including refund, collection or collection) or to be imposed (including refund, collection or collection) by the previous provision at the time of the enforcement of the law, shall be governed by the previous provision." This is a special provision that allows taxpayers to apply the former law in favor of taxpayers in order to protect their rights and trust (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5666 delivered on May 24, 1994)." However, as seen above, since the former Act had been amended by Act No. 4165 on or before December 31, 198, income accruing from the transfer of land, etc. created by a project implementer of the district designated under the provisions of the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act, the new Act had been amended by the former Corporate Tax Act to be reduced by 50%, regardless of the reduction or exemption of special surtax under the provisions of the former Corporate Tax Act, and then the new Act had been amended by 150% of special surtax.

"On the other hand, as seen earlier, Article 5 (3) of the Addenda of the former Cho Jae-gu Act, which was enforced from January 1, 1990, provides that "any tax imposed (including refund, collection or collection) or to be imposed (including refund, collection or collection) by the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of the Act, shall be governed by the previous provisions." Thus, in this case where the former Cho Jae-gu Act was amended disadvantageous to the plaintiff, the plaintiff should be exempted from special surtax by applying the aforementioned legal principles and the initial non-taxation provision under the former Corporate Tax Act under the former Corporate Tax Act and the initial non-taxation provision under the former Corporate Tax Act under the former Corporate Tax Act." Accordingly, the disposition rejecting the correction of each of the above cases against which 50% special surtax is imposed on the income accrued from the transfer after January 1, 1990, and the disposition rejecting the refund of the already paid special surtax by 50% is unlawful.

1. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of each disposition of this case and rejection of correction is reasonable, and this is accepted, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

may 3, 1998