Whether the proviso of Article 77 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act is invalid because there is no ground for delegation by higher statutes or because of a violation of higher statutes (negative)

Article 77 (1) (proviso) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 138 of Apr. 3, 2000) provides that the acquisition value shall be calculated by the formula of the "scheduled land substitution area 】 the standard market price per unit at the time of acquisition 】 not only the method of calculation but also the method of calculation that can be interpreted under Article 167 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1664 of Dec. 31, 199) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16664 of Dec. 31, 199), namely, the method of calculation that is based on the previous land size and the expected land size should be based on the expected land substitution area. Therefore, it cannot be deemed invalid because the method of calculation

Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6051 of Dec. 28, 1999); Article 8 of the Addenda (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1664 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 164 (10) and Article 167 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1664 of Dec. 31, 1999); Article 77 (1) proviso of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 138 of Apr. 3, 200)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu7789 delivered on April 19, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 8 (Special Provisions of Article 8) of the Addenda of the amended Act (Act No. 4803, Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter referred to as "additional Rule 8) provides for the calculation method of capital gains to be acquired on or before December 31, 1984, and Article 167 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1664, Dec. 31, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that the acquisition price of land as of the date of acquisition is 10 x 20 x 10 m3 m2 before the date of acquisition of land as of the date of acquisition (the date of acquisition) and the actual transaction price as of the date of acquisition x 10 m20 m20 m20 m20 m3 m20 m20 m3 m2

In the same purport, the court below was just in holding that the disposition of this case where the plaintiff calculated the acquisition value by multiplying the scheduled area for substitution by the standard market price as of January 1, 1985, the date of acquisition on April 1, 1985, and imposed the capital gains tax pursuant to the provisions of the proviso of this case is legitimate, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidity of the provisions of the proviso of this case or the principle of substantial taxation, etc., and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the provisions of this case or the principle of substantial taxation, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the court below, on August 8, 198 of the same year, the Seoul Songpa-gu ( Address 2 omitted) was designated as the scheduled land substitution and then disposed of as it was sold to other on or around January 1, 1998.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)