(a) Where the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that a corporate tax disposition based on a new authoritative interpretation by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service with regard to the so-called increase in income

A. The principle of retroactive taxation prohibition stipulated in Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be applied solely on the ground that the taxation disposition by the tax authority was conducted by changing the interpretation of the tax-related law or the practice of national tax administration, which was generally accepted by the taxpayers. It should have trusted the interpretation of the tax-related law or the practice of national tax administration and should have done any act or calculation, and furthermore, it can be applied only where the taxpayer suffered economic disadvantage, such as the tax burden, etc.,

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the disposition of corporate tax assessment in accordance with a new authoritative interpretation by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service violates the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation, on the ground that even though the authoritative interpretation by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service was modified as to whether the difference in the appraisal in the case where the company acquired the non-listed stocks that the person has waived to acquire at a price lower than the appraisal price under Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act constitutes the profit of so-called increase in the value of the assets received without compensation under Article 12 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, it cannot be deemed that the company trusted the previous public opinion of the Commissioner of the National Tax

(b)Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 12(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act;

Attorney Kim J-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu14501 delivered on February 1, 1994

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

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the remaining 20,00 shares acquired by the plaintiff 1 and the 2-3-10-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-6-1-6-1-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-8-8-8-8-1--7-7-7-7-7-1--7-7-7-19-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-19-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-19-7-7-7-7-19-7-7-7-19-7-19-7-7-14-7-7-7-19-7-7-19-7-7-19-7-7-14-7-19-7-7-7-7-1000

2. However, the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be applied solely on the ground that the taxation by the tax authority was conducted by changing the interpretation of the tax law or the practices of the national tax administration, which was generally accepted by the taxpayers. Furthermore, the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation cannot be applied only where the taxpayer has trusted the interpretation of the tax law or the practices of the national tax administration, and where the taxpayer should have conducted any act or calculation, and the result of the taxation disposition is that the taxpayer

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff company cannot be deemed to have acquired the shares of the non-party company based on the trust of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service's public opinion list that the evaluation marginal profit in the case where the non-party company acquired or renounced the shares of the non-party company does not constitute revenue from the transfer of the shares. Rather, according to the records, the plaintiff company's acquisition of the shares of the non-party company is recognized as being in accordance with the non-party company's business needs due to the relationship in which most of the publications of the plaintiff company are printed, so the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to have violated

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the disposition of this case violates the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation under Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

3. 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)