Whether the proposal for adjudication on the constitutionality of the Enforcement Decree is legitimate

Article 41(1) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that a court may request an adjudication on the constitutionality of a statute to the Constitutional Court only when it is the premise of the adjudication on the constitutionality of a statute. As such, Article 124-3(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14080, Dec. 31, 1993), which is the Presidential Decree, cannot be the subject of an application for adjudication on the constitutionality of a statute.

Article 41 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act

Supreme Court Order 91Hu16 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1555), Supreme Court Decision 90Da5 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1942), Supreme Court Decision 92Da14 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 272)

Vice-Decree Co., Ltd.

The request for an adjudication on constitutionality shall be dismissed.

Article 41(1) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that a court may request an adjudication on the constitutionality of a statute to the Constitutional Court only when it is the premise of the judgment on whether a statute violates the Constitution. Thus, the issue of whether a provision of Article 124-3(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14080, Dec. 31, 1993) is unconstitutional cannot be the subject of an application for an adjudication on the constitutionality of a statute, and therefore, the application for an adjudication on the constitutionality of a statute

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the motion for adjudication on the constitutionality of this case.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)