A. Whether Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, which delegates the method of determining the standard market price for calculating the tax base to the Presidential Decree, violates the principle of no taxation without law (negative)

(b) Whether Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) (affirmative) which delegates method of determining the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of land not belonging to a specific area to the Ministry of Finance and Economy

(c) Whether Article 56-5 (7) and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act that delegates the notification of specific areas and the determination of a scale to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service is valid (affirmative)

D. Whether the method of calculating the acquisition value of transferred assets acquired before its enforcement constitutes a retroactive legislation (negative)

E. Whether a different method of determining the standard market price for a specific area is contrary to the principle of equality under the Constitution (negative)

A. Articles 23 and 45 of the Income Tax Act clearly stipulate the transfer income tax rate and the method of calculating the tax base amount. However, Article 60 of the Income Tax Act delegates only the method of determining the standard market price, which serves as the basis for calculating the tax base, to the Presidential Decree. Thus, it cannot be deemed as an invalid provision contrary to the principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution.

B. According to delegation of Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) stipulates that Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) clearly divides general matters concerning the determination of the standard market price into a specific area determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and an area not so, and Paragraph 3 of Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act specifically stipulates that if there is no multiple factor, it is obvious

C. Although Article 56-5(7) and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act provides that the notice of a specific region, the determination of the method of conversion, and the method of conversion, under the conditions as prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, shall not be deemed to comprehensively delegate the matters delegated by law or Presidential Decree to a person who does not have the right to enact laws or Presidential Decree, merely delegates to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service the determination of the data necessary for calculating the reasonable standard market price

D. If the legislation on the transfer income tax applies only to the transfer of assets after its enforcement, it stipulated that the acquisition value before its enforcement should be calculated in a way unpredicted at the time of its acquisition, and it cannot be said that it goes against the rule of law.

E. It does not constitute a violation of the principle of equality under the Constitution on the ground that the area where the real estate price has rapidly increased or is expected to increase or are expected to be a specific area, and the method of determining the standard market price was different.

Article 60(b)(d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)(d).(5) Articles 56-5(7) and 56-5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3935 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong190.281 delivered on December 12, 1989)

Thai line

Head of Maritime Affairs Office

Busan High Court Decision 89Gu2608 delivered on April 6, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 23 and Article 45 of the Income Tax Act clearly stipulate the transfer income tax rate and the method of calculating the tax base: Provided, That Article 60 of the Income Tax Act delegates only the method of determining the standard market price which serves as the basis for calculating the tax base to the Presidential Decree, so it cannot be deemed as an invalid provision in violation of the principle of no taxation without representation under the Constitution, and upon delegation, Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply) specifically divides the general matters concerning the determination of the standard market price in paragraphs (1) and (2) into a specific area prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and Paragraph (3) of the same Article stipulates that the method of determining the standard market price at the time of the acquisition is clearly delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that a comprehensive delegation of delegated matters under the Act is made (see Supreme Court Decision 8Nu1940 of December 12, 198989).

In addition, even if each of the above provisions, and Article 56-5 (7) and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance by delegation, stipulate that the notice of the specific area and the rate, and the method of conversion in special cases shall be determined under the conditions as prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, this merely delegates to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service only the determination of data for calculating the appropriate standard market price at that time according to the situation of each individual land, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the delegation of delegation

In addition, insofar as the legislation on the transfer income tax applies only to the transfer of assets after its enforcement, it cannot be deemed a retroactive legislation contrary to the principle of the rule of law because it provides that the acquisition value before its enforcement should be calculated in a way unpredicted at the time of its acquisition, and it can not be deemed a retroactive legislation contrary to the principle of the rule of law.

In the end, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out in the judgment below. In addition, it is clear that the above provision is unconstitutional, and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles in the omission of judgment.

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)