[1] Whether a donee is included in "owner (including a successor) at the time of authorization for a project implementation under Article 109 (3) of the Local Tax Act (negative)

[2] The ordinance to be applied in a case where the ordinance on taxation or exemption of the market price was amended and there is no transitional provision in the Addenda (=Ordinance enforced at the time of the establishment of the tax liability)

[3] Whether the transitional provisions stipulated in the Addenda of the amended Act affect the timely application of the amended Act (negative)

[1] The main sentence of Article 109(3) of the Local Tax Act provides that "No acquisition tax shall be imposed in the case of acquiring land acquired by the owner (including the inheritor) through the land substitution plan, the land and building acquired by the management and disposal plan, and the land and building acquired by the project implementer through the land substitution plan at the time of authorization for the implementation of the urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the land and building acquired by the owner (including the inheritor) as a result of the execution of the land substitution project under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and Article 127-2(2) provides that "No registration tax shall be imposed on the registration and registration of the real estate, etc. for which acquisition tax is not levied under Article 109," and the above provision provides that only the owner at the time of authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project shall be included in the non-taxation of registration tax, and the purport of the above provision is to achieve a smooth promotion of the redevelopment project, and it is based on a policy-based consideration that double imposition of registration tax on land and building donation contracts.

[2] In cases where the municipal ordinance on taxation or exemption of market price is amended disadvantageous to taxpayers, the previous municipal ordinance shall apply in cases where the previous municipal ordinance shall apply to taxpayers with special transitional regulations in order to protect the taxpayer's vested rights or trust. However, unless there are transitional provisions that continue to apply the previous municipal ordinance after the enforcement of the revised municipal ordinance, unless there are other special circumstances, the municipal ordinance that takes effect at the time of the establishment of tax liability among the municipal ordinances before and after the revision of the revised municipal ordinance shall apply.

[3] In principle, the supplementary provision of the amended Act provides for matters concerning the enforcement of the pertinent Act following the amendment of the Act. Thus, the transitional provision stipulated in the supplementary provision provides for the scope of application between the new Act and the former Act following the amendment of the pertinent Act. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the amendment of the pertinent Act directly affects subordinate Acts and subordinate statutes and results in the amendment of the subordinate Acts and subordinate statutes, it does not affect the application relationship following the amendment of the subordinate Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, in a case where the subordinate Acts and subordinate statutes are amended, unless there are such special circumstances as above, the time limit between the new Act and the former shall be determined by the supplementary provision of the relevant subordinate

[1] Articles 109(3) and 127-2(2) of the Local Tax Act / [2] Articles 7 and 9 of the Local Tax Act / [3] Articles 7 and 9 of the Local Tax Act, Article 7 of the Addenda to the Local Tax Act ( December 27, 1993), Article 6 of the Addenda to the Local Tax Act ( December 22, 1994)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu453 delivered on April 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 738), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu88 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987, 1007), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4468 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1081), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu825 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3294), Supreme Court Decision 98Du15788 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2130)

Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City and one other (Attorney Go Young-deok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na16875 delivered on July 21, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the second ground for appeal

Article 109 (3) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) provides that "No acquisition tax shall be imposed on the land acquired by the owner (including the inheritor) through the land substitution plan, the land and building acquired through the management and disposal plan, and the land and building acquired by the project implementer at the time of authorization for the implementation of the project due to the execution of the land rearrangement project under the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, the urban development scheduled zone development project under the Urban Planning Act, and the urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and Article 127-2 (2) provides that "No registration tax shall be imposed on the registration and registration of the real estate, etc. for which the acquisition tax is not levied under the provisions of Article 109," which includes only the inheritor at the time of authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project. The purport of the above provision is to include the inheritor in this case, which is merely a comprehensive succession of the status of the inheritee, and to impose double registration tax on the heir.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiffs do not constitute the owner at the time of authorization to implement the project is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the owner and the heir at the time of authorization to implement the project or incomplete hearing

2. On the first ground for appeal

In cases where the ordinance on taxation or exemption of the market price is amended disadvantageous to taxpayers, the previous municipal ordinance shall apply to cases where the previous municipal ordinance that is favorable to taxpayers shall apply to taxpayers with special transitional provisions to protect the taxpayer's vested right or trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu453, Apr. 9, 1985; 87Nu8, May 12, 1987; 89Nu4468, Apr. 10, 199). However, unless there are transitional provisions that the previous municipal ordinance shall apply continuously after the enforcement of the revised municipal ordinance, unless there are special circumstances, the previous municipal ordinance that is enforced at the time of the establishment of tax liability among the municipal ordinances before and after the revision of the revised municipal ordinance under the principle of non-payment of the law shall apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu825, Aug. 22, 195; 9Du578, Aug. 15, 199).

In addition, the supplementary provision of the amended Act provides for matters concerning the enforcement of the Act in question following the amendment of the Act. Thus, the transitional provision provided for in the supplementary provision provides for the scope of application between the new Act and the former Act following the amendment of the Act in question, and it does not affect the application relationship following the amendment of the subordinate Act unless there are special circumstances, such as that the amendment of the Act in question directly affects the subordinate Act and brings about the same result as the amendment of the subordinate Act. Thus, unless there are such special circumstances as above, if the subordinate provision of the Act is amended, the application scope between the new Act and the former shall be determined in accordance with the supplementary provision of the relevant subordinate Act in question.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's project implementer was authorized to implement the redevelopment project in Zone 18 district redevelopment cooperative in Zone 18 district under the Urban Redevelopment Act on May 7, 1985, and accordingly, the building of this case was completed on May 31, 1994, and the plaintiffs were succeeded to the land and building from the members at the time of the initial authorization for implementation, and the registration of preservation of ownership in the names of the plaintiffs was completed on March 20, 195 as to each of the sectional ownership of the building of this case, and even after the date of the authorization for implementation of the above redevelopment project, the plaintiffs were exempted from the registration tax under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Ordinance on Exemption from Taxation in Zone 18 district (Ordinance No. 1963, Dec. 31, 1984; Ordinance No. 1963, Dec. 31, 198).

Meanwhile, Article 7 of the Addenda of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993) and Article 6 of the Addenda of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994) which were amended by Act No. 4611 of Jan. 1, 1994, which were enforced since Jan. 1, 1995, shall continue to apply the previous provisions after the enforcement of the Act. However, Article 109 (3) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611) of the above Act is related to the requirements for non-taxation of acquisition tax, and there is no relationship with the exemption or non-taxation of registration tax, and Article 127-2 (2) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794) was newly established that the Plaintiffs did not fall under non-taxation of registration tax under the so-called Local Tax Act, which does not affect the plaintiffs' trust in the amendment of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 1).

Therefore, the court below's decision that the plaintiffs did not include any transitional provision under Article 2394 of the Ordinance and Article 2687 of the Ordinance is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of protection of trust.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)