A. Whether Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) violates the parent law pursuant to delegation of Article 60 of the Income Tax Act (negative) and whether it conflicts with paragraphs (1) and (2) (negative)

B. Whether retroactive legislation of capital gains tax, which provides for the method of calculating the acquisition value predicted at the time of its acquisition prior to its enforcement (negative), and whether the amendment of the above Enforcement Decree violates good faith (negative)

A. 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 the transfer pursuant to delegation of Article 60(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for a specific area at the time of transfer, and it is apparent that only the method of determining the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of assets with no percentage rate is delegated to the Treasury Ordinance because it does not fall under a specific area at the time of the transfer. Thus, Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act cannot be deemed null and void because it is delegated to the Treasury Ordinance comprehensively to the determination of the standard market price at the time of the acquisition, and Article 60(3) of the Income Tax Act does not conflict with the provisions

B. As long as the legislation of capital gains tax, which is a tax on income accruing from the transfer of assets, applies only to the transaction of transfer of assets after its enforcement, the acquisition value should be calculated by an unpredicted method at the time of the acquisition before its enforcement, and it cannot be deemed that the amendment of the enforcement decree at the time of its enforcement was null and void against the good faith.

A. B. Article 115(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3515 delivered on July 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1819) (Gong1819) 90Nu5634 delivered on September 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 2110). 88Nu11940 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 281) 90Nu511 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong191, 125) 90Nu511 delivered on December 7, 1990 (Gong191, 502), 90Nu8107 delivered on April 23, 1991 (dong) 290Nu319809 delivered on June 29, 209 (Gong31909, Apr. 29, 209)

Attorneys Han-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu3166 delivered on August 21, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989; hereinafter the same) provides for general matters concerning the determination of the standard market price at the time of transfer pursuant to delegation of Article 60(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for a specific area at the time of transfer, and it is apparent that only the method of determining the standard market price at the time of acquisition of assets with no percentage is delegated to the Ministry of Finance and Economy because it does not fall under a specific area at the time of transfer at the time of transfer. Thus, Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act cannot be deemed null and void because it is delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy comprehensively to determine the standard market price at the time of the acquisition, together with paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same Article.

In addition, as long as the legislation of capital gains tax, which is a tax on income accruing from the transfer of assets, applies only to the transaction that transfers assets after its enforcement, it stipulated that the acquisition value should be calculated by an unpredicted method at the time of its enforcement, and it cannot be deemed a retroactive legislation, and it cannot be said that the amendment of the Enforcement Decree was null and void against the good faith and trust (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2192 delivered on June 12, 190).

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the transfer value in this case, where the land which was not a specific area at the time of its acquisition comes to belong to the specific area on September 30, 198, shall be decided by the rate under Article 115 (3) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the acquisition value shall be decided by the conversion method under Article 56-5 (7) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under Article 56-5 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, shall not be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. The precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit are related to the interpretation of Article 115 of the Income Tax Act before the Enforcement Decree

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)