Whether the provisions of the proviso of Article 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977 of December 31, 1982) violates the parent law

The proviso of Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982) does not coincide with the provisions of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), which is the mother corporation, and it is nothing more than clarifying the method of calculating transfer margin which is possible to interpret the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, it does not require a separate delegation provision of the Income Tax Act. Thus, it cannot be viewed as invalid.

Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576, Dec. 21, 1982); Article 170(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977, Dec. 31, 1982)

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu281 Decided July 8, 1986, 84Nu490 Decided July 22, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu143 delivered on July 23, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The proviso of Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982) does not coincide with the provisions of Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982), which is the mother, and it is nothing more than expressly specifies the method of calculating gains on transfer possible in the interpretation of the above provisions of the Income Tax Act, and therefore it does not require a separate delegation provision in the Income Tax Act, and therefore it cannot be deemed as a invalid provision (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu281, Jul. 8, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu490, Jul. 22, 1986).

From this point of view, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff purchased each of the above 83 square meters and 23 square meters 1956.18 and 1957.2.12.44 square meters on the ground of this case, and owned a new building of 112.38 square meters on the ground of this case and 12.4 square meters on the 1959.38 square meters on the 1959.4 square meters on the 196.4 square meters on the 198.4 square meters on the 198.3rd New World Co., Ltd., Ltd., the non-party 10,000 won and its price was paid by 640,000 won on May 10, 198.4, the court below's determination that this case's building site and building was 100,000 won on the 19.3rd World Co., Ltd., Ltd., the above non-party company's transfer price was 150.16.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)