Whether Article 41(14)2, Article 66(1) and (2), Article 76(9)2, and Article 121(1) through (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act concerning additional corporate tax violates the property right of a person subject to such provisions or violates the principle of tax equality (negative)

Article 41(14)2 and Article 66(1)2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), and Article 76(9)2 and Article 121(1) through (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6558 of Dec. 31, 2001), concerning additional corporate tax as provided in Article 41(14)2 and Article 66(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6558 of Dec. 31, 2001), are the same as the total payment cost of the transaction partner, and thus, there is a legislative purpose to establish a basis for taxation and foster the tax base, separate from the fact that the disadvantage suffered by the corporation due to the imposition of additional tax is significantly higher than that of the public interest, the method of imposing additional tax on the portion of land subject to the above provision cannot be considered as being unreasonable or unreasonable in light of its legislative purpose and purport.

Articles 41(14)2 (see current Article 76(9)2), 66(1) (see current Article 121(1)2), and 121(2) (see current Article 121(5)), Articles 76(9)2, 121(1), (2), and (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 6588, Dec. 31, 2001); Articles 11, 23(2), and 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Supreme Court en banc Order 2003Du12820 Decided October 13, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1931) en banc Order 2002HunBa80, 87, 88, 2003Hun-Ga22 Decided June 29, 2006 (Hun-Gong117, 889) en banc Order 2004Hun-Ga13 Decided July 27, 2006 (Hun-Ga18, 1065)

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Head of the tax office;

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu8885 delivered on April 2, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 41(14)2 and Article 66(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5581, Dec. 28, 1998); Article 76(9)2 and Article 121(1) through (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6558, Dec. 31, 2001); the provision on additional tax of corporate tax under Article 121(1)2 of the former Corporate Tax Act is applicable only to the parties to a transaction, on the grounds that the sales amount of one party is the same as the total payment cost of the other party to the transaction, to establish a basis for taxation and train tax base; it is unreasonable to consider that the disadvantages incurred to a corporation due to the imposition of additional tax are significantly higher than those of public interest; thus, it is unreasonable to impose additional tax without considering whether the pertinent provision violates the aforementioned statutory requirements or statutory requirements to impose additional tax, etc. on the parties to the transaction, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is no reason to impose additional tax on the State or statutory basis.

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the invalidation of the above provision of the former Corporate Tax Act as it is in violation of the Constitution, and there is no violation of the Constitution or

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)