A. Whether Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, which delegates the method of determining the standard market price to Presidential Decree, violates the principle of no taxation without law (negative), and whether Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989), which comprehensively delegates matters delegated by this Act, is re-entrusted to subordinate statutes (negative)

B. Whether Article 56-5 (7) and (5) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1812 of March 15, 1990) comprehensively delegates matters delegated by law or Presidential Decree to a person who does not have the right to enact this Act (negative)

C. The method of calculating the acquisition value predicted before the enforcement date is stipulated, but whether the legislation regarding the transfer income tax applicable only to the transfer of assets after the enforcement date is in violation of the retroactive legislation (negative) and whether the provision of guaranteeing property rights under the Constitution violates (negative)

D. Whether the method of determining the standard market price with respect to a specific area is contrary to the constitutional principle of equality (negative)

E. Whether Article 46-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 499 of Nov. 13, 1989) on the provisional grade of the land designated as the land scheduled for replotting by the land readjustment project becomes effective (affirmative)

A. Articles 23 and 45 of the Income Tax Act clearly stipulate the transfer income tax rate and method of calculating the tax base, etc. However, since Article 60 delegates only the method of determining the standard market price, which serves as the basis for calculating the tax base, to the Presidential Decree, it cannot be deemed as an invalid provision in violation of the principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution. Accordingly, upon delegation, Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) provides for general matters concerning the determination of the standard market price at the time of transfer under paragraphs (1) and (2) and (3) and delegates only the method of determining the standard market price at the time of acquisition to the Ministry of Finance and Economy in a case where there is no rate for the specific district at the time of transfer, it is apparent that this provision delegates only the method of determining the standard market price at

B. Article 56-5(7) and (5) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1812 of Mar. 15, 190), which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy by delegation of Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, provides that the determination of the public notice and rate of this specific area, and the method of conversion in special cases shall be made under the conditions prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, even if the determination of the method of conversion is made under the conditions prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, it is merely a delegation to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service of only

C. If the legislation on capital gains tax applies only to the transfer of assets after its enforcement, it cannot be deemed a retroactive legislation contrary to the principle of the rule of law inasmuch as the acquisition value before its enforcement was determined by the method unpredicted at the time of its acquisition. Moreover, this cannot be deemed as a violation of the provisions of guarantee for illegal infringement of property rights under the Constitution.

D. An area where a rapid increase in the value of real estate has occurred or is expected to occur is classified into a specific area, and the method of determining the standard market price was different, and it cannot be said that it goes against the principle of equality under the Constitution.

E. Article 46-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 499 of Nov. 13, 1989) concerning provisional grade is not a new class of land, but rather a class of land to be newly established separately from the previous class of land. Thus, it shall be deemed as a class of the modified class determined because the dignity or circumstances of the land stipulated in Article 80-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act are significantly changed, so it shall be valid as it is prescribed by delegation of Article 80-2 (2) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act concerning the modified class.

A. (C) Article 60 of the Income Tax Act; Article 115(3)(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989); Article 59(b) of the Constitution (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 13, 1989); Article 56-5(7) and (5)(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1812 of Mar. 15, 1990); Articles 13 and 23(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 80-2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs

A.B.C. (d) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3515 Decided July 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1819).B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3300 Decided August 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2045).B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5511 Decided November 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 125). B. (Ga) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6293 Decided April 23, 1991 (Gong191, 1531).Da.90Nu8077 (Gong191, 1544) Decided April 26, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu19459 Decided 1979 decided May 19, 195 (Gong1995Da19795 decided May 19, 1995).

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 90Gu950 delivered on October 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 23 and Article 45 of the Income Tax Act clearly stipulate the transfer income tax rate and method of calculating the tax base: Provided, That Article 60 of the Income Tax Act delegates only the method of determining the standard market price which serves as the basis for calculating the tax base to the Presidential Decree, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an invalid provision in violation of the principle of no taxation without the law under the Constitution. Accordingly, according to delegation, Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989) specifically divides the general matters concerning the determination of the standard market price into a specific area as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and its non-specific area at the time of transfer under paragraphs (3) of the same Article.

In addition, even if each of the above provisions, and Article 56-5 (7) and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance by delegation, stipulate that the notice of the specific area and the rate, and the method of conversion in special cases shall be determined under the conditions as prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, this merely delegates to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service only the determination of data for calculating the appropriate standard market price at that time according to the situation of each individual land, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the delegation of delegation

In addition, insofar as the legislation on transfer income tax applies only to the transfer of assets after its enforcement, it cannot be deemed a retroactive legislation contrary to the principle of the rule of law because it provides that the acquisition value before its enforcement shall be calculated by an unpredicted method at the time of its acquisition, and this cannot be deemed as a violation of the provisions of the rule of law regarding the protection of property rights under the Constitution. This distinction an area where a rapid increase in the value of real estate has occurred or is expected to occur from a rapid increase in the value of real estate into a specific area, and the method of determining the standard market price thereof is different, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of equality under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu3515, Jul. 24, 190; 90Nu5955, Nov. 13, 1990). In this purport, the court below's decision that each of the above provisions of law

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the provisions of Article 80(1)1 and Article 80-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, where a land substitution is designated under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act, the standard market price of the land in the said land substitution and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and determination of the price is based on the provisional class newly established following the designation of the land substitution and rearrangement and determination of the price. The purport of the above provisional class is that, where a project involving a land substitution is implemented, if a land substitution is designated, the previous landowner may exercise the same right to use and benefit from the previous land, but it is impossible to adjust public records, such as land substitution, before the land substitution becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the provisional class is prescribed because it is necessary to temporarily apply the same class until the land substitution is determined, and therefore, the above provisional class is more than the new class of the land, and it shall be deemed that the quality or condition of the land stipulated in Article 80-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is significantly modified under Article 40-2 of the same Enforcement Decree.

In this regard, the court below's decision that the above statutory provision is valid is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Accordingly, 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 judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)