Whether the provision of Article 170 (10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 8960 of April 24, 1978) is a provision of invalidation without any legal basis (negative)

Article 170 (10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 8960, Apr. 24, 1978) at the time of the mother corporation (Act No. 3015, Dec. 19, 197), Article 23 (2) and (5), Article 45 (1), and Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are contrary to each of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and there are no other legal grounds for invalidation.

Article 170 (10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 8960 of April 24, 1978)

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu166 Delivered on October 14, 1980

Plaintiff

The litigation performer, leap, leap, and Kim Jong-chul of the head of the Yeongdeungpo-gu District Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 79Nu464 delivered on February 26, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 170 (10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 8960 of Apr. 24, 1978) which was enforced at the time of the disposition of this case provides that "where a resident who transfers assets under the subparagraphs of Article 23 (1) of the former Income Tax Act, such as land, within a specific area prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, fails to make a preliminary return on transfer margin of assets under the provisions of Article 95 of the same Act, the price surveyed after consultation with a person under paragraph (9) shall be deemed as an actual transaction amount and the calculation of transfer margin shall be made." However, this provision goes against the provisions of Articles 23 (2) and (5), 45 (1), and 60 of the Income Tax Act at the time of the mother corporation (the Presidential Decree No. 8960 of Apr. 24, 1978), and Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, as well as the provisions on the invalidity of capital gains tax due to lack of legal grounds, it cannot be justified.

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

Justices Lee Il-su (Presiding Justice)