[1] Whether delegation of authority to impose and collect local taxes is legitimate (affirmative)

[2] The degree of payment notice of aggregate land tax

[3] Whether Article 194-6 (2) and Article 79 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which excludes an individual, is contrary to subparagraph 2 of Article 234-12 of the Local Tax Act or invalid beyond the delegation scope of the parent company, is limited to the scope of non-profit entrepreneur for which the aggregate land tax is not imposed (negative)

[4] Whether the subparagraphs of Article 194-15 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides the land subject to separate taxation of aggregate land tax, is not an exemplary provision but a limited provision (affirmative)

[5] Whether Article 194-15 (1) 2 and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 194-15 (1) 2 and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which does not provide that farmland owned by a clan shall be subject to separate taxation of aggregate

[6] Whether the proviso of Article 194-15 (1) 2 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides for the requirements for separate taxation regardless of whether the provisions of the proviso of Article 194-15 (1)

[7] Whether Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1989), which provides for the application of the former Act favorable to taxpayers, as an exception to the principle of non-payment of laws, applies to cases where a taxation requirement occurred after the enforcement of the amended Local Tax Act (negative)

[1] According to Article 4 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 2000) and Article 95 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the head of a local government may delegate his/her authority to impose and collect local taxes corresponding to the so-called autonomous affairs to a subordinate administrative agency as prescribed by the delegation ordinance.

[2] A notice of payment of aggregate land tax shall be deemed to meet the requirements for the basis of calculation of the amount of tax required by the Local Tax Act, unless there are special circumstances with regard to the number and total area of each taxable object in the whole country and within the jurisdiction, the whole country, a separate tax base, a separate tax base, a separate parcel number and area of each land within the jurisdiction, the lot number and area of each land within the jurisdiction, the indication of taxation classification, the tax rate based on the classification of taxation, and the tax rate

[3] The legislative purpose of the aggregate land tax is to establish the principle of satisfaction of taxation, restrain excessive holding of land and facilitate the supply and demand of land. The non-taxation of aggregate land tax according to the classification of uses under Article 234-12 of the Local Tax Act is to provide tax support to land which is used for public purposes or recognized as public interest by excluding land which has a character of public interest from taxation subject to taxation, considering various elements such as acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. like other local taxes, such as social policies and economic policies. An individual and organization have essential differences in legal nature, and where an organization which is a non-profit entrepreneur carries out public activities such as religion and company, it can expect continuity of the business. On the other hand, when an individual carries out the above business, it appears that an organization is superior to the individual in terms of the public interest or public interest of the business, such as the lack of continuity of the business, and considering the legislative purpose and purpose of the taxation and non-taxation provisions of the aggregate land tax, delegation background, history of delegation, etc., it cannot be seen that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of delegation of the above non-profit.

[4] Article 194-15 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17052 of Dec. 29, 2000) which provides for the land subject to the separate taxation of aggregate land tax exceptionally shall be deemed not an example provision but a limited provision. Thus, insofar as the land subject to the separate taxation does not fall under any of the above subparagraphs, it shall not be deemed that the land subject to the separate taxation of aggregate land tax under Article 234-15 (2) 6 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 200)

[5] In light of the purport of the system of separate taxation on the aggregate land tax in accordance with policy consideration that the purpose of the system is to supplement unreasonable outcomes coming from the comprehensive aggregate taxation by exceptionally taking a separate taxation on land requiring heavy taxation or transitional taxation according to a separate standard, the authority to prescribe the requirements for separate taxation belongs to the legislative formation authority of the legislator. Thus, the authority to prescribe the requirements for separate taxation belongs to the legislative formation authority of Article 194-15 (1) 2 (f) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17052 of Dec. 29, 200). Article 194-15 (1) 2 (f) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17052 of Dec. 29, 200) provides that the farmland owned by a clan shall be subject to separate taxation

[6] In light of the structure and text of Article 194-15 (1) 2 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17052 of Dec. 29, 2000), even if the land subject to aggregate land tax meets the requirements stipulated in the main sentence, farmland in the urban planning districts of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Si/Gun shall be subject to separate taxation only when it is located in development restriction zones and green areas, and the provisions of the proviso shall not be construed as a requirement for separate taxation regardless of whether it falls under the main sentence.

[7] Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1989) provides for the period of its application as a general principle that the tax law at the time when the tax liability is established shall be applied. Article 5 of the Addenda provides for the period of its application, and Article 5 of the Addenda provides for the exception to the principle of non-payment of law, which is disadvantageous to the taxpayer. In the event that the tax law is revised disadvantageous to the taxpayer, it is a special provision that exceptionally applies the former law favorable to the taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer's rights of acquisition or trust, and there is no room to apply

[1] Article 4 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 200), Article 95 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act / [2] Articles 1 (1) 5, 25 (1), and 234-18 of the Local Tax Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Articles 6 and 104-16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act / [3] Article 234-12 subparagraph 2 of the Local Tax Act, Articles 79 (1) 1 and 194-6 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act / [4] Article 234-19 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 200), Article 234-15 (2) 6 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2519 of Dec. 29, 2000) / [19-2 of the former Local Tax Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12708 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1757), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu4060 delivered on November 12, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3623) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 99Du1632 delivered on May 29, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 99Du7265 delivered on May 29, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1526)

Plaintiff

The head of Sinyang-si in Masan-si

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu14094 delivered on June 13, 200

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 4 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312, Dec. 29, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the head of a local government may delegate part of his/her authority under the Act to a subordinate administrative agency, etc. under the conditions as prescribed by Municipal Ordinance or Municipal Rules. Article 95 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the head of a local government may delegate part of his/her authority to a subordinate administrative agency, etc. under the conditions as prescribed by Municipal Ordinance or Municipal Rules. Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Gyeyang City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs (amended by Act No. 472, Jan. 18, 199; No. 3) provides that the head of a local government shall delegate part of his/her authority to a subordinate administrative agency, etc. under the conditions as prescribed by the above delegation Ordinance, which is the head of a local government.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case was lawful because it was based on delegation of authority of the high-sea market is just, and there is no violation of the principle of no taxation without law as to the imposition and collection of local taxes as otherwise alleged in

B. A notice of payment of aggregate land tax shall be deemed to meet the requirements for the calculation basis of the amount of tax required by the Local Tax Act, unless there are special circumstances as stated in the taxation classification, with the number and total area of each taxable object in the whole country and within the jurisdiction, the whole country, a general tax base, a separate tax base, a separate tax base, the lot number and area of each land within the jurisdiction, the number and area of each land within the jurisdiction, the indication of taxation classification, and the tax rate based on the taxation classification, and the tax rate based on the taxation classification, and the tax rate based on the taxation basis law (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu12708, Apr. 26, 1996; 96Nu4060, Nov. 12,

According to the records, the defendant shall enter the number of taxable objects and the total area into the jurisdiction across the country, first, in the notice of tax payment of this case (the evidence No. 1 of this case), and shall enter the total tax base in the whole country, separate aggregate, separate aggregate, separate aggregate, and separate taxation (for land to be combined aggregate within the jurisdiction, the total sum of the values of the land shall be one tax base; for land to be combined aggregate, the total sum of the values of the land shall be stated as one tax base; for land to be divided within the jurisdiction, the tax base amount of one forest land, which is a separate aggregate of the jurisdiction, was stated separately, and there was no separate aggregate within the jurisdiction; for land within the jurisdiction, the tax base amount shall be expressed separately; for land within the jurisdiction, the location and area of the goods (individual lot number), the indication of the tax classification, and the number of land by each tax authority for the whole country, and the tax rate according to the tax classification, the basis of imposition, the measure and remedy method against the delinquent land shall be deemed to have not satisfied the requirements for calculation of the tax base.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the degree of entry in the notice of aggregate land tax as otherwise alleged in the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 234-12 subparag. 2 of the Local Tax Act provides that "land directly used for business by a non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree for religious purposes, religion, charity, academic purpose, art, or other public services" as one of the non-taxation objects of the aggregate land tax. According to delegation, Articles 194-6(2) and 79(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provide that "non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree" as one of the above "non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree". The purpose of the aggregate land tax is to establish the principle of satisfaction of taxation, to restrain excessive holding of land, and to facilitate supply and demand of land. The provisions of the aggregate land tax by the classification of use under Article 234-12 of the Local Tax Act are to exclude land used for public purposes or having character of public interest from the taxation object of the aggregate land tax, so it is difficult to view that the scope of the aggregate land tax is unreasonable for an individual or non-profit entrepreneur to be delegated to the public interest purpose of Article 234-12 of the Local Tax Act.

In the same purport, the above provisions of the Enforcement Decree cannot be deemed null and void because they are in violation of the mother law, and therefore the decision of the court below that the land in this case does not fall under non-taxation under Article 234-12 subparagraph 2 of the Local Tax Act is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to non-taxation of aggregate land tax, or misunderstanding of legal principles as

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Article 234-15 (2) 6 of the Act provides that "land similar to land under subparagraphs 3 through 5 and is prescribed by Presidential Decree as being subject to the separate taxation of land and aggregate land tax". Article 194-15 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17052 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that "land prescribed by Presidential Decree which is not to be included in the comprehensive aggregate tax base according to its delegation" in each subparagraph. Thus, each subparagraph of Article 194-15 (4) of the Enforcement Decree, which stipulates the land subject to separate taxation, shall be deemed not an example provision, but a limited provision (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du7265, May 29, 2001); the land subject to separate taxation, which does not fall under the objects of separate taxation under Article 194-15 (4) of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 234-15 (2) 6 of the Act.

In addition, in light of the purport of the system of separate taxation on the aggregate land tax, in accordance with policy considerations, it is intended to exceptionally separate taxation on land requiring heavy taxation or transitional taxation in accordance with separate standards to supplement unreasonable outcomes coming from the comprehensive aggregate taxation, the authority to prescribe the requirements for separate taxation belongs to the legislative formation authority of the legislator (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du7265, May 29, 2001). Thus, Article 194-15(1)2(f) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the farmland owned by a clans shall be subject to separate taxation, and Article 194-15(1)2 and (4) of the same Act provides that the said farmland owned by a clans shall be excluded from the subject to separate taxation, even if each of the above provisions is not in violation of the principle of tax equity based on the principle of equality as provided by the Constitution.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the farmland among the land in this case does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 194-15 (4) of the Enforcement Decree and does not fall under the object of separate taxation under Article 234-15 (2) 6 of the Act is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of separate taxation and the application of tax rate

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Article 194-15 (1) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree provides that "farmland registered as a resident for at least six months as of the tax base date from the seat of the Gu/Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the seat of the electric field, paddy field, and orchard (5) and an area adjacent thereto within 20km from the seat of Gu/Si/Gun or farmland, which is subject to the aggregate land tax, shall be farmland owned for farming purposes: Provided, That farmland within the urban planning districts of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities (8) and Si/Gun (8) shall be limited to farmland within the development restriction zones and green belt zones, even if the land subject to the aggregate land tax meets the requirements prescribed in the main sentence, it is obvious that the farmland within the urban planning districts of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Si/Gun shall be subject to the aggregate land tax only if the land subject to the aggregate land tax meets the requirements prescribed in the main sentence, and it shall not be construed as a separate requirement for

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject matter of separate taxation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

5. Ground of appeal No. 5

Article 1 of the Addenda of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1989) provides that "this Act shall enter into force on January 1, 199," and Article 5 provides that "this Act shall apply to local taxes imposed, reduced, or exempted under the previous provisions at the time of entry into force of this Act, in accordance with the previous precedents." Article 1 of the Addenda provides that "The period of its application shall be the general principle that the tax law at the time of entry into force of the tax liability shall be applied, and Article 5 of the Addenda provides that "Article 1 of the Addenda of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1989) which is exceptionally favorable to the taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer's rights of acquisition or trust, and where a taxation requirement occurs only after the entry into force of the amended Local Tax Act, there is no room for its application

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that there is no room to apply Article 5 of the above Addenda to the aggregate land tax of June 1, 1999 for the case of this case, which set the tax base date as the date of June 1, 199 after the amended Local Tax Act enters into force, is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 5

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

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)