Article 41(1) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that when a law becomes a premise for a trial on constitutionality, the court in charge of the case shall, ex officio or by its decision, request the Constitutional Court to adjudicate on constitutionality of the law, and Article 68(2) provides that when a request for adjudication on constitutionality of a law under Article 41(1) is dismissed, the party who has made the request may request an adjudication on constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court. In this case, the party who has made the request may not again request an adjudication on constitutionality of a law again for the same reason in the proceedings of the case. Article 69(2) provides that an adjudication on constitutional complaint under Article 68(2) shall be requested within 14 days after the request for adjudication on constitutionality of a law is dismissed, on the ground that the request for adjudication on constitutionality of a law is based on the premise that the decision on constitutionality of a law is based on the premise that the law is unconstitutional, within 14 days after the request for adjudication on constitutionality of a law is rejected, the adjudication on constitutional complaint cannot be filed again for the same reason in the proceedings of the case.

According to the records, the applicant is against the principle of equality in taxation and no taxation without law (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007), Article 95(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2009), Article 104(1)2-3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009), Article 16 of the Addenda of the amended Act of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7006 of Dec. 30, 2003) by discriminating three or more owners of the same household without reasonable grounds and including the transfer income acquired before the amendment of the said Income Tax Act, and thus, it is unlawful for the court to dismiss the above application for a new trial on the ground that the above provision violates the constitutional provisions of the Act and its unconstitutionality for the same reason.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the applicant’s motion for proposal of this case is dismissed.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)