The case holding that an expanded interpretation of the meaning of "within the same standard market price adjustment period" is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law on the ground that if the time of transfer and acquisition of land are not within the same standard market price adjustment period under Article 56-5 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1848 of March 6, 191), it would result in a change in

The case holding that an expanded interpretation of the meaning of "within the same standard market price adjustment period" is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law on the ground that if the time of transfer and acquisition of land are not within the same standard market price adjustment period under Article 56-5 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1848 of March 6, 191), it would result in a change in taxation

Articles 115(3) and 115(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12994, May 1, 1990); Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 56-5(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1848, Mar. 6,

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu92 Decided May 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 1079) 86Nu694 decided September 22, 1987 (Gong1987, 1653) 88Nu8371 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1485)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu17237 delivered on November 25, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiffs acquired the land of this case on July 13, 1990 and transferred it on December 26, 199, and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the above disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the above acquisition and transfer were within the same standard market price adjustment period under Article 56-5 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1848 of Mar. 6, 191; hereinafter the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax), although the above acquisition and transfer were not within the same standard market price adjustment period under Article 56-5 (2) 2 of the same Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the defendant's acquisition and transfer of the land of this case was within the same period of time after the previous standard market price was announced, the above "within the same standard market price adjustment period of 90.19 days before the enforcement date of the Income Tax Act, as the standard market price of this case was established within the same period of 90.19 days.

However, according to the principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution, taxation requirements and procedures must be provided as law, and they shall be strictly interpreted and applied in the enforcement of tax laws, such as the order and rules by delegation of the law, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogical interpretation of the administrative convenience (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu694 delivered on September 22, 1987). Thus, as premised on the judgment of the court below, if the acquisition time and transfer time of the land of this case are not within the adjustment period, the above provision cannot be applied unless the same standard price under Article 56-5 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule is within the adjustment period, and even if the same standard market price is applied as acquisition price according to such interpretation, even if there is a result of the difference in the imposition of capital gains tax depending on the time of acquisition, it shall be in violation of the above principle of no taxation without law.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

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 Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)