(b) In the case of the preceding paragraph, the starting point of calculating the extinctive prescription of the right to impose and collect speculation penalty;

B. Article 27(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746 of Aug. 7, 1984) which applies to special measures taxes under the former Special Measures Tax Act pursuant to Article 27(5) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 3746 of Dec. 21, 1974), which was effective January 1, 1975, includes both so-called taxation rights and tax collection rights. The extinctive prescription of the right to impose special measures tax shall pass from the date after 30 days have elapsed from the date of the transfer of land ( regardless of the filing of the tax base amount), and the transfer date here refers to the date of transfer under Article 9(4) of the above Special Measures Tax Act. Thus, even if six years have elapsed or more from the date of the receipt of the intermediate payment or the sales price has increased, the right to impose control taxes on the transfer of real estate has expired after the lapse of five years from the following day after the date of receipt of part of the intermediate payment.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff 2's first sale and purchase contract for the real estate of this case with the non-party 1 2,00,00 won for the transfer of the above real estate and the transfer of the above real estate to the non-party 2, 70,000 won for the transfer of the above 2,00 won for the first 7,00 won for the transfer of the above 97,00 won for the transfer of the above 17,00 won for the first time after 7,00 won for the transfer of the above 9,00 won for 17,00 won for the transfer of the above 9,00 won for the first time after 7,000 won for the transfer of the above real estate. The non-party 2, who received the above 97,00 won for the transfer of the above 9,000 won for the first time after 7,000 won for the transfer of the above real estate, was not subject to the attachment registration of the non-party 2, 97,

The duty of taxation is established when the taxation requirements under each tax law are completed, that is, when the tax base is calculated as prescribed by each law and the tax rate can be applied, and the imposition of tax must be governed by the law in force at the time of the establishment of the duty of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 64Nu93, Dec. 15, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 63Nu202, Jul. 14, 1964).

However, Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Income Tax Act provides that, even if the transfer of real estate was carried out at the time of the conclusion of the contract on the instant real estate, the transfer income tax law was enacted by Act No. 1972 on Nov. 29, 1967, and was revised by Act No. 1986 and Jan. 13, 1971, and thus, the transfer of real estate was invalidated under the Act No. 2690 on the Special Measures for the Prohibition of Real Estate Speculation (amended by Act No. 2690, Jan. 1, 1975; hereinafter referred to as the “Special Measures Tax Act”) provides that, if the transfer of real estate was carried out after the date of the execution of the contract, the ownership of the land was de facto transferred by exchange, investment in kind to a juristic person, etc., and thus, the transfer or acquisition of real estate was not carried out within the scope of the previous tax base pursuant to the said Act and thus, the transfer or acquisition of real estate is no more than 100 billion won.

Furthermore, with respect to whether the right to impose and collect tax on the transfer margin of this case has expired or not, Paragraph 5 of the Addenda of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Act No. 2679 of Dec. 21, 1974) shall be deemed as national taxes under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes at the time of enforcement of this Act, and this Act shall apply to the special measure tax under the former Special Measures Act (the income tax). The term "right for collecting national taxes" under Article 26 Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes before the expiration of the period of exclusion of the right to impose tax under Article 3746 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Act No. 3746 of Aug. 7, 1984) shall include the so-called right to impose tax and the right to collect tax, and since the expiration of the period of 170 million won from the date of imposition of tax after the expiration of the period of 197Nu18472 of the said Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1984, Apr. 9, 198984).

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the right to impose and collect the speculative restraint tax following the transfer of the land of this case is deemed to have expired on April 11, 1974 after the lapse of five years from the above date.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the applicable law to the transfer margin of this case, the time of land transfer, and the point of the expiration of the statute of limitations of national taxes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won