Whether a new legislation to reduce the scope of reduction or exemption of special surtax, which is the transfer of land owned by a corporation itself, is a retroactive legislation in the case of applying the land acquired before such implementation.

The principle of non-payment in the tax law means that the relevant tax law cannot be applied to the completed facts prior to the entry into force of the relevant tax law, but it does not limit the application of the relevant law to the facts of taxation requirements that have been continued, or it does not limit the application of the statutes to the subsequent facts. Thus, a new legislation that reduces the scope of reduction and exemption in the special surtax, which is the transfer of land owned by a corporation itself, shall apply only to the transfer of land, etc. that was made after the enforcement of the new legislation, the mere fact that the time of acquisition of land, etc.

Article 59 Subparag. 10 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4451, Dec. 27, 1991); Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant)

Hanjin General Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., Law Office of Korea-U.S. Joint Law Office, Attorneys Noh Jeong-hee et al.

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu29230 delivered on August 19, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The principle of non-payment in the tax law means that the relevant tax law cannot be applied to the completed facts prior to the entry into force of the relevant tax law, but it does not limit the application of the law to the facts of taxation requirements that have been continued, but since the new legislation that reduces the scope of reduction and exemption in the special surtax, which is based on the ownership of land, etc., is applied only to the transfer of land, etc. made after the enforcement of the new legislation, the mere fact that the time of acquisition of land, etc. is prior to the new legislation cannot be said to be a retroactive legislation.

Article 59-3 (1) 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988) provides that special surtax shall not be imposed on income accrued from the transfer of reclaimed land acquired by a person who acquired ownership pursuant to Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act. However, as the above provision was deleted by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198 and Article 59 (2) 6 of the same Act were newly established, 50% of special surtax amount should be exempted. Since the above provision was deleted by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989 and the above provision was applied by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 10, 198, Article 59-3 (1) 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 19, 200).

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)