(1) The legality of the disposition of capital gains tax under retroactive application of the statute enforced after the acquisition of property;

In order to calculate transfer margin by the method of multiple rates under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229 of Dec. 30, 1978), it shall be interpreted that not only at the time of transfer but also at the time of its acquisition that the property should be located in a specific area and the rate should be determined. Thus, the disposition of this case, which applies retroactively to Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Decree (see Article 1 of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Decree, 1980) newly enacted by Presidential Decree No. 9698 of Dec. 31, 1979, which was enforced after the transfer of this case, shall not be unlawful, unless there is any dispute between the parties.

Article 23 of the Income Tax Act, Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu910 delivered on August 30, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the other hand, Articles 23 (4), 45 (1), and 60 of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 3098, Dec. 5, 1978), 23 (4), 45 (1), and 60, which was enforced at the time of the transfer of this case, shall be based on the actual transaction price, in case where the actual transaction price is unclear, the standard market price at the time of the transfer and acquisition of the assets shall be determined by the Presidential Decree, and the determination of the standard market price shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree. (A) In a specific area designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the standard market price at the time of the transfer of this case shall be determined by the rate under paragraph (1) 1 (a) of the Local Tax Act, based on the tax base price at the time of the transfer and acquisition under paragraph (1) 1 (a) of the same Article.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which applies Article 115 (3) (see Article 1 of the Addenda of the Revised Decree, see Article 180.1.1.1) retroactively to the effect after the transfer of this case, shall not be unlawful in the absence of dispute between the parties as to the absence of the determination of the ratio to a specific area at the time of the acquisition of this case's property. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit, and that the determination of transfer margin according to the standard market price according to the method as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for assets with no determination of the ratio to a specific area is not asserted by the court below, and there is no evidence to see it in the records. Thus, the theory of lawsuit on this point

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 Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)